Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Coventry Corporation Bill,

Newquay Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (IRAQ-INDIA AIR SERVICE).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a friendly settlement of the questions outstanding between the Persian Government and the British Government has yet been reached; and, if not, can he state how the negotiations for the establishment of a civil air service between Iraq and India are proceeding?

The SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and I cannot make any statement on the subject at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS (LOAD-LINES).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the need of international agreement upon the question of ships' load-lines, he will bring it before the Assembly of the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of promoting international uniformity in the question of load-lines will be pursued steadily by His Majesty's Government, but the subject. is not one which in the ordinary course would be brought before the League of Nations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the policy of His Majesty's Government on this question to get other Powers to conform to our load-line: in other words, is our policy to get the load-line lowered? Will the policy of the Government be to stiffen up and increase the safeguards for ships by lowering the load-line, in view of the fact that other nations have a higher load-line than we have?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be obliged to the hon, and gallant Member if he would put that question to the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the Foriegn Secretary not aware that what we want is similar treatment for all nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We often want things that we do not get.

Oral Answers to Questions — PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are now in force for safeguarding the interests of His Majesty's subjects of the Moslem faith making the pilgrimage to Mecca; and whether His Majesty is represented at Mecca or other city in the dominions of King Ibn Saud?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, the arrangements which have proved satisfactory during the last two years, and which were referred to in the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 16th of May last, remain unchanged. The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt inform me if he desires detailed information on any particular point. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government are represented by an agent and Consul at Jeddah.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: What happens to our Moslem fellow
subjects who may feel aggrieved in the City of Mecca? Is there any British representative to whom they can appeal for protection?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: They can apply to the agent at Jeddah. We have no representative at Mecca.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (NANKING OUTRAGES).

Mr. DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made between the Powers and the Nanking Government with reference to the occurrences in Nanking in 1927?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards a settlement of the claims against the Chinese Nationalist Government over incidents arising out of the capture of Nanking in the spring of last year; whether he has information showing that a number of Chinese soldiers and desperadoes have been executed for excesses against foreigners; and whether he anticipates a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of the whole matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Nanking incident has been the subject of discussions at Shanghai between Sir Miles Lampson and the Nationalist Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I am unable to say at present whether these will result in a settlement of the incident. On the 16th March the Nationalist authorities issued an order stating that those persons who were responsible for the incident, namely, 19 soldiers and 32 bad characters, had been executed on the spot.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION (WESTERN SAMOA).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will assure the House that, when the Report on Western Samoa comes before the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva next June, the British representative will not offer any resistance to the hearing of the cause of the Mau or League of Samoans for self-government as well as the official case of New Zealand, the mandatory Power?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is expressly provided in the constitution of the Permanent Mandates Commission that its members shall be selected on personal grounds and that they shall not hold any office which puts them in a position of direct dependence on their Government. It has further been ruled by the Council of the League that in no case shall any member of the Commission be regarded as representing the State of which he is a citizen or subject. It follows that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain are not in a position to give any assurance of the kind suggested in the question. The constitution of the Commission, however, provides that each report on a mandated territory shall be examined in the presence of the duly authorised representative of the mandatory Power from which it comes. In the case of Western Samoa, the appointment of this representative and the instructions which he receives are matters for decision by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand.

DISARMAMENT (SOVIET PROPOSALS).

Mr. MALONE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegation on the Disarmament Commission at Geneva have received any instructions with reference to the Soviet proposals for general disarmament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The British delegate on the Preparatory Committee for Disarmament has been instructed to co-operate with his colleagues in securing full examination of the Soviet proposals, and the House will note from this morning's papers that he has carried out his instructions with singular force and ability.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Russian Government is showing any desire by practical efforts to disarm, such as His Majesty's Government have already shown by reducing our cruiser programme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Will the Foreign Secretary issue the Russian proposals in the form of a White Paper?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Whose proposals?

Mr. SMITH: The Russian proposals.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (WOMEN).

Miss WILKINSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the French diplomatic service women have recently begun to be appointed to responsible posts, other than posts of a clerical nature, in the diplomatic service, and that women have been appointed to posts of ministerial or other rank in the Russian Soviet and the Bulgarian diplomatic service; and whether he is prepared to adopt this practice in the British diplomatic service?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the recent decision of the French Government, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, while admitting women to certain posts in Paris, provides that no woman so admitted can be employed abroad. I am aware that women have held posts in the Rusian Soviet, and I think once in the Bulgarian diplomatic service. I do not think any change in our own rules desirable.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that British women are behind foreigners in regard to possessing the necessary diplomatic qualifications?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, quite the contrary.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this prejudice ought to be abolished, and that if there is a woman fit for a position, her sex should not stand against it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Viscountess ASTOR: Sir?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Rules of the House oblige me to address the Speaker. I do not think that any prejudice enters into the matter. I think it is a matter of expediency and our Rules are best in the present circumstances.

Viscountess ASTOR: As the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Speaker, I never heard a word he said.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Foreign Secretary not consider that where a woman takes on a man's job and gets a man's pay, she ought to maintain an unemployed man and not spend the salary upon herself?

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

ADMIRALTY (CONTRACT AND PURCHASE DEPARTMENT).

Mr. W. THORNE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the general discontent in the office of the Technical Cost Section of the Contract and Purchase Department, Princes House, Kingsway, due to the severity of the discipline; if he is aware that objections are being raised to advances of money expended by members of that Department. on subsistance whilst on public service; and if he will take any action in the matter?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am unaware that any general discontent exists in the Technical Cost Section of the Contract and Purchase Department, but, if the hon. Member will give me specific details of any complaint, I will inquire into them. As regards the second part of the question, I believe there is no foundation for the suggestion. It is the custom, whenever necessary, to make advances to the staff before expenditure is incurred on journeys on the public service.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PULVERISED COAL FUEL.

Sir R. THOMAS: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what experiments his Department has made with pulverised coal fuel; how the thermal efficiency compares with that of oil; and whether, in view of the desirability of using home-produced in preference to imported fuel, he contemplates converting oil-fired ships to burn pulverised coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on 17th February, the Admiralty have made no experiments with pulverised fuel. I am not clear as to what information is desired in regard to the
second part of the question, but, if the hon. Member wishes to know the relative calorific values of coal and oil for steam-raising purposes, they are in the ratio of 19.5 to 14.5. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. PALING: In view of recent experiments which have proved the high percentage of efficiency of this fuel, and in view of the parlous state of the mining industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be a good thing to experiment in the Navy with this fuel in order to use coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer of 17th February, he will see that we are watching these experiments very carefully with a view to finding out whether they are of any use to the Admiralty. When the hon. Member reads that answer, he will see that the stage has not arrived at which the fuel would be of any use.

BOMBING EXPERIMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any recent experiments have been carried out to test the effect of large bombs dropped from aircraft so as to explode under water on the hulls of large warships; whether, without detriment to the public interest, he can state the conclusions of the Board on this subject; and whether his attention has been drawn to the experiments carried out by the American Government for testing the effects of air attacks of this nature on warships, the details of which have been published?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A number of experiments to ascertain the effect on a ship's structure and fittings of bombs exploding below water have been carried out by the Admiralty, and recent design in under-water protection is based on information obtained from these experiments. Research is still being continued on this subject on scale models and special targets. It is not in the public interest that the details of the various experiments carried out and in contemplation should be published. All the published accounts of experiments made by the American Government have been received and noted by the Admiralty; in general they are in accord with the British Admiralty experiments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the American experiments it has been shown that large bombs dropped in this way could disable or sink the most modern ship, and does the First Lord feel satisfied that experiments on models and in tanks will prove a real test in this matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say that our experiments were on models. I said that, we were quite aware of what has been published by the American Government, and we are keeping our eyes open.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to feel that he is being pressed in any way, but I wish to know if experiments have actually been carried out against floating ships?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like that question to be put on the Paper.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Were the experiments on central hulls?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or on crooked shanks?

ENGINEERING LECTURES.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty for what purpose lectures on engineering subjects arc given to engineer officers of the Royal Navy; what the subjects are and whether they are confined to officers ranging from admirals to lieutenants; and, if so, whether the arrangements could be extended to chief engine-room artificers and engine-room artificers when in the depots after foreign service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to monthly meetings of engineer officers at the home ports, which are held for the purpose of exchange of experience and opinions by means of lectures and discussions. The subjects are those of the problems of naval engineering practice and development. They are not confined to specific ranks of officers, but are open to all commissioned and warrant officers. A desire for similar meetings is not known to exist among chief engine-room artificers and engine-room artificers, but, should such be brought to light through the channels which exist for such purposes, it will receive due consideration.

Mr. YOUNG: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember, if application is made for these lectures, that the men concerned are men who have to earn their livelihood as engineers when they leave the Service?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: indicated assent.

SINGAPORE BASE (CIVILIAN EMPLOYéS).

11. Mr. KELLY: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of civilians employed by his Department at the Singapore base; and what rate of wages is paid to labourers employed by the Admiralty at Singapore?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The number employed on 1st February was 700; the usual remuneration for labourers amounts to $3.95 a week which is based on the current local rate. In addition the men are provided with free quarters.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Admiralty have made any inquiry as to the adequacy of this living accommodation?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I must have notice of that question.

GIBRALTAR DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

H. Mr. KELLY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any discharge of civilians has taken place from His Majesty's Dockyard, Gibraltar; if so, what number have been discharged and from which department; and if ex-apprentices of less than 15 years' service have been notified of the intention to dispense with their services?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Since 31st December last, 274 men have been discharged from various departments, and notices have been or are proposed to be issued to about 124 men. Included in the numbers discharged or proposed to be discharged are 31 ex-apprentices of less than 15 years' service.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14 and 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) with reference to £2,612,050 estimated to be expended in the coming financial year on engines and boilers of ships completed in His Majesty's Dockyards and elsewhere, which firms have been entrusted with the
construction; and whether there is any Government establishment in which they could be constructed;
(2) with reference to the £193,900 estimated to be expended in the coming financial year on auxiliary machinery for His Majesty's ships and vessels, which firms have been entrusted with this construction; and whether there is any Government establishment in which this auxiliary machinery could be constructed?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The amounts quoted cover not only a great number of contracts to be allocated during the coming financial year, but also various contracts placed in earlier financial years and not yet completed. It is, therefore, impracticable to furnish any statement of the contractors concerned. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that the capabilities of the various Government establishments are borne in mind and opportunities afforded them of tendering for and manufacturing items of machinery, etc., in suitable cases.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that they are not making any of these materials referred to in my question?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not aware of that fact.

CONTRACT WORK (INSPECTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the £197,800 estimated to be expended in the coming financial year on inspection of contract work, how many officers and workmen are employed in each of the private firms where the contract work is being done; and why so large a sum is expended upon this work of inspection?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The overseeing staff to which this provision relates conists of about 500 officers and workmen. Their distribution varies according to the allocation of work from time to time. I would point out that the cost of inspection is less than 2 per cent. of the value of the work involved and that the number of the staff employed is continuously under review.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say who are these people who inspect? Are they dockyard officials?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They are inspectors.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD EXTENSIONS, DUNDEE (GRANTS).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now prepared to make a substantial grant, and, if so, how much, towards the cost of extending Dock Street, Dundee, from the old flour mills to Taybank housing scheme on the Ferry Road?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. This scheme was the subject of preliminary discussion, on the 8th instant, between representatives of the City of Dundee and officers of my Department. When full details of the project have been submitted and examined, I will consider whether it is possible to give assistance during the coming financial year.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Are the details being further examined now?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, they are now being examined.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to confirm the general understanding of representatives of Perthshire and Forfarshire County Councils, as also of Dundee City Council, that his Department will make a grant of 75 per cent. to the estimated cost of £64,000 for the completion of the Kingsway?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. The scheme in a preliminary shape has been before my Department on several occasions, but, until the local authorities concerned have reached a definite agreement among themselves as to the precise form of the scheme and the allocation of the cost, I cannot enter into any commitment regarding assistance from the Road Fund. No offer of a 75 per cent. grant has been made, nor is any offer of a grant at that rate likely to be made.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If the consideration of this question is proceeding apace,
could not the right hon. Gentleman give them now a definite understanding as to what percentage would be granted, in order to facilitate the settlement?

Colonel ASHLEY: No; I think I must ask the local authorities to come to some definite agreement among themselves and then come to me, and then I will consider what I can do. That is a condition precedent to such grants throughout the country generally.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: As the scheme involves work for no fewer than 150 men for two years, might not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to accelerate some arrangement?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will speed up the local authorities' consideration of the matter, and put the scheme up to me, I will consider it directly it arrives.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND "TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing but British material is used on this scheme?

DANBURY (SPEED LIMIT).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the serious danger to the inhabitants of Danbury village owing to motor cars travelling at excessive speed through the village, he will authorise the imposition of a speed limit between the Bell Inn and the Bakers Arms in the main Chelmsfor-Maldon high road?

Colonel ASHLEY: In order to enable me to impose a special speed limit for motor cars, application for a Regulation has to be made to me by the appropriate authority under the Motor Car Act, 1903, in this case the Essex County Council. Unless the circumstances are very exceptional, however, I am not in favour of special speed limits, as I do not think that they are effective as a means of protecting the public.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Sundays and holidays there is a great amount of traffic passing at excessive speed down the winding road on Danbury Hill, and will he not take steps to limit the speed of this traffic which is very dangerous to the inhabitants of the village?

Colonel ASHLEY: I know the place myself, and can my hon. and gallant Friend assure me that he never goes through the village at more than 10 miles an hour?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: There is no speed limit at present, and I am entitled to go 20 miles an hour.

AVIATION (HIGH-SPEED FLIGHTS).

Mr. LAWSON: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what preliminary air trials had been carried out with the seaplane used by Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead in the recent effort to beat the speed record?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if be can give particulars of the recent flying practice carried out by Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead on high-speed seaplanes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead had been engaged in high-speed flying since early in 1927, he had had experience of various types of high-speed aircraft, and he had flown one of the machines, the Gloster IV, in the Schneider trophy race last September. The machine which he was using when he met with his most deeply regretted accident was a reproduction of the machine which then won the Schneider trophy, and he had given it a preliminary practice flight on the day before his death.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could my right hon. Friend say whether some form of ethyl petrol was being used, and whether the rumour that the fumes incapacitated Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead was true or not?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend had better give me notice of that question, but I can say in a sentence that there is no evidence to show that the fumes had anything to do with the accident.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Was some form of ethyl petrol used?

Sir S. HOARE: As I say, I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the fact that the conditions were so bad on the day an which the accident occurred, was
there some special reason why the flight should have taken place on that day?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the subject of another question.

Mr. COMPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of Question No. 32 which asks about the conditions of visibility?

Sir S. HOARE: That question has not yet been reached.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask what practical use is achieved by experiments at these very high speeds?

Sir S. HOARE: They are of very great practical use. We have found that high-speed trials have resulted in distinct advances in the matter of engines, in the design of aircraft, and in the design of floats.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received the result of the post-mortem examination?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir ; the inquest has been adjourned.

Mr. LAWSON (for Mr. BROMLEY): 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the rank of the officer responsible for ensuring that the recent attempt to achieve a seaplane speed record took place under the most favourable weather conditions for safe flight; whether this officer was present when the attempt was made by Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead; and whether he received a forecast of the conditions of visibility anticipated during a period when snowstorms were occurring?

Sir S. HOARE: Flight-Lieutenant Kinkead was himself the officer in charge of the high-speed flying section of the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment, and as such was responsible for the arrangements for the attempt. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

MIDWIVES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the supply, pay, and training of midwives, with special reference to their distribution in rural areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is taking steps to set up a Committee to inquire into the general question of the training and supply of midwives.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TOWN PLANNING (BETTERMENT).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases in which betterment has been recovered under Section 10 of the Town Planning (Consolidation) Act, 1925; and the total of the amounts so recovered?

Sir K. WOOD: Claims for compensation and betterment under the Town Planning Act, 1925, are not required to be reported to my right hon. Friend, and I have knowledge of only one claim for betterment, resulting in the recovery of £1,500. The right to claim betterment has been chiefly used in meeting possible claims for compensation, which, so far as may information goes, have been few.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the Minister consider the amendment of the Act with a view to making the betterment provisions more effective?

Sir K. WOOD: I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to put that question down, but I think he will have gathered from my reply that I do not think there is any necessity for such an amendment.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses which have been dealt with under the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; whether any and what counties have failed to put this Act into operation; and the number of houses which have been completed in agricultural parishes under the 1924 Housing Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Up to the end of December last, the latest date for which information is available, applications had been received by local authorities for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in respect of 599 dwellings. At the same date, assistance had been promised in respect of 151 dwellings, and work was in progress on
89 dwellings. There are four counties (Isle of Ely, Soke of Peterborough, Merioneth and Radnor) for which no schemes have yet been submitted under the Act in question, and in which none of the district councils have been declared authorities. The number of houses completed in agricultural parishes in England and Wales under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, up to the 1st March, 1928, was 10,090.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of the four counties referred to?

Sir K. WOOD: I read them out. The hon. Gentleman will find them in the answer.

Mr. HURD: In the case of these county councils which have not submitted schemes and others that are not carrying out their duties under the Act, will the Minister consider making the rural district councils the housing authority under the Act?

Sir K. WOOD: That would be a matter for consideration.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURER'S COTTAGES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (for Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN): 40.
asked the Minister of Health approximately how many cottages, which have been built with a subsidy under any of the Housing Acts since the War, are let at a rental or 5s. a week, inclusive of rates, or less; how many of these cottages are occupied by agricultural labourers or estate employés; and what is the number of cottages provided by farmers and agricultural landowners for their employés at 3s. a week or less?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of juvenile unemployment centres situated in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Sussex ; and whether it is intended to provide any additional training establishments in these counties during 1928?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): There are no juvenile unemployment, centres open in these areas at the present time, and, so far as I am aware, there is no part of these counties in which the volume or duration of unemployment makes a centre necessary.

MIDDLESBROUGH.

Miss WILKINSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received an estimate of the number of persons who will be no longer entitled to benefit at the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange after April of this year; and, if not, whether he can obtain these figures?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give any figures, but there is no reason, so far as I am aware, for expecting any great change.

Miss WILKINSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the board of guardians had to make a large call upon the rates in anticipation of the number who will be turned off unemployment benefit, and is it not likely, therefore, that a, very considerable number will be turned off?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I consider that, on the whole, I can form a, better anticipation than the board of guardians.

Miss WILKINSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that about 100 able-bodied men under 30 are detained at the Holgate Poor Law institution of Middlesbrough; and whether, in view of the trades of the town being unlikely, in the near future, to absorb these men, he is prepared to authorise any schemes of training which will enable them to earn their living and remove them from the rates?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will have inquiries made and communicate again with the hon. Member.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (REDISTRIBUTION.)

Mr. KELLY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour what reports have been received in response to C. E. Circular No. 2 regarding the redistribution of juvenile labour?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Rather less than half the replies I expect to receive have reached me. It is not possible to summarise in reply to a. question the nature of the answers I have received some of which are of an interim character.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House of the replies with regard to the removal of these juveniles up and down the country?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: I shall be glad to give the House any information in my power, but the replies are of a very interesting and varying character, and it is impossible to put all of them down in answer to a question.

CLAYDON TRAINING CENTRE.

Mr. SHORT: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number admitted to Claydon Training Centre during 1927 and the number who have settled abroad?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During 1927, 475 men were admitted to the Clay-don Centre for training in farm work for employment overseas, and 429 men trained at the centre were placed in employment on farms in Canada and Australia.

Mr. RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this figure compares with 1926, and whether the accommodation is fully occupied?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot say that off-hand. The accommodation at Claydon, so far as I know, is fully occupied. Of course, there has been a slight shortage, but, if the hon. Member wants details, perhaps he will put down another question.

EXTENDED BENEFIT.

Mr. SHORT: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of claims for extended benefit in each month of 1927; the number of claims disallowed; and how many claims for unemployment benefit were rejected during 1927, with an analysis of the reasons for rejection?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

*APPLICATIONS for Extended Benefit considered by Local Employment Committees in Great Britain during each of the 12 months ended 16th January, 1928.


—
11th Jan.,1927 to 14th Feb., 1927.
l5th Feb., 1927 to 14th mar., 1927.
l5th Mar., 1927 to 11th Apl., 1927.
12th Apl., 1927 to 9th May., 1927.
10th May, 1927 to 13th June., 1927.
14th June, 1927 to 11th July., 1927.
12th July, 1927 to 8th Aug., 1927.
9th Aug., 1927 to 12th Sep., 1927.
13th Sep., 1927 to 10th Oct., 1927.
11th Oct., 1927 to 14th Nov., 1927.
15th Nov., 1927 to 12th Dec., 1927.
13th Dec., 1927 to 16th Jan., 1927.


Applications considered
404,607
280,746
257,770
220,198
271,942
239,379
225,267
306,414
242,404
317,832
276,507
321,525


Applications admitted
330,803
225,353
205,737
175,713
217,121
193,089
184,514
255,765
202,186
266,738
235,853
280,432


Applications recommended for disallowance.
73,804
55,393
52,033
44,485
54,821
46,290
40,753
50,649
40,218
51,094
40,654
41,093


Grounds of disallowance:


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
4,213
2,541
2,459
1,684
2,193
1,851
1,610
2,298
2,266
3,311
2,773
2,836


Insurable employment not likely to be available.
2,360
1,908
1,816
1,794
2,480
2,026
1,738
2,247
1,717
2,106
1,347
1,054


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceeding two years.
25,706
18,671
16,911
14,467
17,254
13,956
12,608
17,388
14,416
18,231
14,151
13,916


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
16,794
12,801
12,247
10,316
12,451
9,484
8,930
12,099
9,983
12,667
10,300
10,946


Single persons residing with relatives.
11,241
7,787
7,099
5,645
6,579
5,722
5,754
8,283
6,219
8,061
6,639
7,069


Married women who could look for support from their husbands.
2,951
1,856
1,731
1,508
1,827
1,537
1,750
2,515
1,864
2,240
1,862
1,961


Married men who could look for support from their wives.
374
292
361
251
627
265
266
423
359
480
425
390


Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance.
7,544
7,405
7,624
7,428
9,615
10,049
6,835
3,829
2,062
2,402
1,895
1,458


Aliens
18
13
12
5
11
6
8
11
6
3
3
10


Postponed for a definite period.
2,603
2,119
1,773
1,387
1,784
1,394
1,254
1,556
1,326
1,593
1,259
1,453


*Statistics are not available regarding the number of separate individuals concerned in these applications nor with regard to the disallowance of claims for standard benefit.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. SHORT: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour, whether he can enumerate the schemes for the provision of work for the unemployed initiated by the various Ministries during 1927; the total expenditure involved; and the number of unemployed absorbed in consequence?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These schemes are initiated by local authorities. During the year 1927 the Ministry of Transport have made grants in respect of 268 schemes of the estimated cost of £6,080,197, and the Unemployment Grants Committee have approved for grant 68 schemes of the estimated cost of £1,649,768. The number of men who have obtained employment in respect of the schemes in question cannot be stated, but in accordance with the monthly returns received the average number employed on schemes in operation during 1927 was 26,629.

Mr. SHORT: Do I understand the Government have not initiated any schemes and that all these schemes have been initiated by the local authorities?

Sr A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is the habitual procedure.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the number employed compares with 1926?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that local authorities, who are up-to-date, are better able to deal with the necessities than the Government are themselves?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At least, they know the local conditions.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. MALONE: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the conditions in which the Washington Eight Hour Day Convention may be revised have not yet been settled, and that under Article 21 of the Convention the application of the Convention will only be discussed and an opportunity for revising it only arise once in 10 years, he will say which is the tenth year when the question of revision may be discussed, and
from which date the 10 years are reckoned at the end of which revision may be discussed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to what I am advised is the better opinion, the period of 10 years specified in Article 21 runs from the "coming into force" of the Convention under Article 18, i.e., from June, 1921. I would remind the hon. Member that what Article 21 does is to require the Governing Body to consider, at least once in 10 years, the desirability of placing this question on the agenda of the Conference. There is nothing to say that the full 10 years or any other period must first elapse.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the only people who are standing in the way of the ratification are the Federation of British Industries; and why cannot the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise now.

COAL INDUSTRY (PELTON FELL COLLIERY).

Mr. LAWSON: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that Pelton Fell Colliery, County Durham, has been closed, and that the work of dismantling the mine began immediately after that decision was taken by the owners; whether he is aware that 1,200 men and boys have been employed, and that the inhabitants of a whole town are deprived of their existence by the closing of the mine; and whether he can take any steps to suspend dismantling operations until the matter is further considered?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I am aware that this colliery has been closed, but the information at my disposal leads me to conclude that intervention on my part would not serve any useful purpose.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the fact that the closing of this mine will have a disastrous effect on the district and that there is some up-to-date machinery, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman get into direct touch with the people concerned to hold up the dismantling process?

Commodore KING: The hon. Member is aware that this pit is in the hands of
a receiver. I understand that it has been offered for sale for some months, and many people have examined it most carefully, but have all come to the conclusion that it is not worth opening.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman been in direct touch with those in control of the mine with a view to stopping the dismantling process, and, if he has not, will he get in touch with them?

Commodore KING: I have no standing in the matter to ask for the stoppage of dismantling. If the hon. Member has any reason for thinking the pit can be reopened and he made representations to the receiver, I am sure they would be considered.

Mr. LAWSON: The Minister of Mines has some standing in the matter that a humble private Member cannot have, and he is aware that the closing of this mine will considerably increase the rates in the district and will probably have a disastrous effect upon other concerns. Will he use his influence to get into direct touch with those who control the mine to withhold the dismantling process?

Commodore KING: I cannot add anything to what I said before. I have gone carefully into the matter. I was in the district last Saturday and had a discussion on the matter with all the mining experts

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that within the last two months scores of cases have been brought to me asking for my intervention in view of the poverty inflicted on the people who are thrown out of work, and is it not time that the hon. and gallant Gentleman intervened and tried to stop it for the sake of the workmen?

SCOTLAND YARD DETECTIVES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the third-degree methods by Scotland Yard detectives in the case of the widow of Harry Pace, in the Forest of Dean; if he is aware that the woman in question was interrogated by these officers for
13 hours and left Coleford police station in a state of collapse; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): ; I am not in a position to reply to-day and shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone his question.

PARKHURST PRISON (ESCAPES).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the number of recent escapes of convicts from Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight, and the consequent crimes committed by these escaped convicts and the anxiety caused to residents living in the island; and will he restore arms to prison officers guarding prisoners in order to prevent further outbreaks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that during the past year convicts have on two occasions escaped from Parkhurst Prison and committed offences in the locality, and I very much regret the anxiety which must have been caused to residents on these occasions. I have had under review the precautions taken at the prison, and have approved certain changes which I hope will be effective.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the trouble that has arisen inside this prison on one or two occasions, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied now with the treatment of the prisoners under the disciplinary measures that have been put in force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman has not put that question down. I think it is one that he ought not to have asked. It contains reflections on the administration of the prison. I made inquiries into the administration of the prison some few months ago and was quite satisfied with what was going on.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he himself gave me facts in answer to a question on the subject, and that that is why I put the question to him?

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that a large number of these offences
are due to the so-called humanitarianism of certain people who interfere with the prison authorities?

Viscountess ASTOR: Never!

LABOUR CLUB, CARLISLE.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 47.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a Labour club has lately been opened in Carlisle and that, before registration, the following conditions were insisted upon; that the club should be subject to police supervision; that they should not become members of the Working Men's Club and Institute; and why these conditions were imposed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no control over the registration of clubs, which is a matter of the general law over the whole country. Perhaps the hon. Member is referring to an application which has been made for my consent to the supply of intoxicating liquor in a new Labour club in the Carlisle State Management District, but he is not correctly informed as to the proposed restrictions. I am considering the application.

COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LIMITED.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seing that surplus profits in the Commonwealh Trust are defined as being surplus profits after a cumulative dividend of 5 per cent. has been paid to the shareholders, and that such liability has not been discharged, he has any information as to the surplus profits from which payment has been or can be made for educational purposes in India and Africa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir. As a matter of fact no surplus profits have been earned and no payment has been made for any purpose in Africa. In the case of the payments made in India they were made from sums earned before the formal transfer of the properties to the Commonwealth Trust as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen) on Monday.

Mr. BAKER: How soon is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be able to make
a statement with regard to the negotiations that are going on?

Mr. AMERY: I hope very soon.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (COTTON GOODS).

Mr. HILTON: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the grant of £1,000,000 per annum to the Empire Marketing Board is not being fully utilised; and if he can direct that a portion of this surplus be used to advertise Lancashire cotton goods in the various parts of the Empire?

Mr. AMERY: The programme of the Empire Marketing Board is planned for development over a period of years and its resources are being conserved accordingly. The Empire Marketing Board, moreover, is confined by the terms of the Parliamentary Vote to the furtherance of marketing in this country, so that in any case I could not give the direction which my hon. Friend desires.

Sir WILFRID SUDDEN: Is it not a fact that the Lancashire market would be perceptibly helped if my hon. Friend's suggestions were adopted?

Mr. AMERY: This money is being spent on the marketing of Empire produce in this country in fulfilment of a pledge given to the Dominion Governments in 1923. It could not, therefore, well be spent on encouragment of British sales in the Empire outside.

Mr. HILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the money is not being spent and that there is a surplus accumulated, and we are asking if this can be utilised instead of lying dormant?

COAST EROSION.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the loss caused by tides and storms to public and other property on the sea coasts of the Kingdom; whether he is aware that many local authorities are unable to provide the funds necessary to protect property from sea erosion owing to the heavy burden of local rates; and whether he will take steps to have the question
further considered in view of the fact that no inquiry has been made into this matter since 1911?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5th March to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. JONES: If I give the hon. Gentleman particulars, will he undertake to have an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot give an undertaking with regard to an inquiry, but I shall be very glad to look into the matter if the hon. Member cares to give me particulars.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman state definitely whether the Board of Trade have taken steps to increase their works against coast erosion?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not quite certain what the hon. Gentleman means by the Board of Trade's own works. Most coast erosion works are the duty of the local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that conditions have altered considerably since 1911?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I daresay some changes have occurred. I shall be glad to receive information from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD'S SHELTER.

Mr. SNELL: 37.
(for Mr. LANSBURY) asked the Minister of Health the number of men and women who were received into the Metropolitan Asylums Board's shelter on the Embankment during the last week in January, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1927, and 1928 respectively; the number sent to casual wards or other Poor Law institutions; the number sent to philanthropic, religious, or other organisations; the number sent to Employment Exchanges or other employment agencies; and the number who were found work ; whether any records are kept as to the previous history of
persons using this shelter; and the number of ex-service men who nave passed through since the War, and the average ages of persons dealt with?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has asked the Metropolitan Asylums Board to supply him with as much of the information asked for by the hon. Member as is available, and will communicate with him on its receipt.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CENTRAL (UNEMPLOYED) BODY FOR LONDON.

Mr. SNELL: 38.
(for Mr. LANSBURY) asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the Central (Unemployed) Body for London as part of the local machinery for dealing with unemployment in London; whether he is aware that this body has not put forward a single scheme of work for men and women since 1914; that the labour colony at Hollesley Bay, controlled by this body, is being used as a mixed workhouse for men, many of whom are considered unfit for ordinary employment owing to physical or mental defects; whether he has received any reports from his inspectors dealing with this colony since the report which was presented some time ago and which called for certain changes in the administration of the colony; and is he in a position to state whether any improvement in the conditions has taken place?

Sir K. WOOD: In answer to the first two parts of the hon. Member's question, my right hon. Friend is aware of the position of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London and the absorption of this body is one of the features of the proposals for London Poor Law reform which have already been circulated. In reply to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a similar question by him on the 15th of February last. With reference to the last part of the question, the Hollesley Bay colony was last inspected by officers of my Department in June, 1927. My right hon. Friend is informed by the body that improvements have been made to meet many of the recommendations resulting from the last inspection.

BELMONT INSTITUTION, FULHAM.

Mr. SNELL: 39.
(for Mr. LANSBURY) asked the Minister of Health how many men can be accommodated at Belmont institution at present administered by the Fulham Board of Guardians; what is the nature of the work the men are expected to do, and is any wage or money allowance paid; will he circulate with the Votes a copy of the dietary scale and hours of labour, together with any information available, showing the remedial character of any work carried on either by voluntary effort or by the officials in charge, how many men have left the institution and found work, and a record of the ins and outs during the past five years; and will he state the total number of men who passed through this establishment during the years ending 31st July, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has asked the Fulham Board of Guardians to supply him with as much of the information asked for by the hon. Member as is available, and will send him a copy on its receipt.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to regulate the methods of slaughtering animals and for purposes relating thereto," presented by Mr. Buxton; supported by Dr. Shiels, Mr. Riley, Viscountess Astor, Sir Robert Newman, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Mr. Ponsonby; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL,

"to enable leaseholders of houses or premises whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less than 30 years to acquire compulsorily the freehold estate and such other outstanding interests affecting the property by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, or any statutory modification thereof," presented by Mr. Haydn Jones; supported by Sir Robert Thomas, Mr. C. P. Williams, Mr. Ellis Davies, Major Owen, Mr. Morris, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Jenkins, Mr.
Ernest Evans, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. George Hall, and Mr. David Grenfell; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

AGENCIES AND REGISTRIES.

Mr. ROSE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to certain agencies and registries; and for purposes in connection therewith.
It is with some trepidation that I rise to ask leave at this stage of the Session to introduce a Bill which is admittedly controversial. I am able to assure the House, however, that it is not controversial in any party sense whatever. It is a Bill which must necessarily be controversial, because it aims at a very evil, vested interest. For a long time past an evil has grown up in connection with employment agencies, and especially and particularly in agencies connected with the theatrical and entertainment profession. This Bill seeks, first of all, to restrict the amount of commission chargeable by and payable to employment agencies to 10 per cent. for 10 weeks. That was, roughly, the usual practice throughout the profession until recent years. But the Bill does not confine its operations to one particular profession. We have to pay regard to the fact that this is a rooted and most unsocial evil which has arisen and increased in the course of time. The Bill seeks to place all employment agencies under licence, and to prevent the evil known as commission splitting. Agents are known to have invested moneys in managements on the condition that they are given a monopoly of agency. In many cases it has arisen, and is well known to all of us who know anything about these matters, this kind of thing has grown to such an extent that it is almost impossible now to know whether the manager is the agent or the agent is the manager.
This agitation has enlisted the wholehearted support of nearly everybody except the Agents' Association. A circular has been issued to every Member of Parliament, received to-day, by persons who are evidently so proud of their position that they have not signed their names. There is the mere signature "The Agents' Association." There is no personal signature. Two-fifths of
this circular is irrelevant, and the other three-fifths is mendacity. These people say:
The promoters of the Bill are calling it 'The Chorus Girls' Charter'.
That is what they call it; we have never called it that. They say:
That is untrue; as the rules of the Agents' Association prohibit agents from charging any commission whatever either to chorus or small part artistes, unless the salary exceeds £3 per week.
We have heard of a certain monarch of whom it is said that he was a saint when he was sick. It seems to me that this claim is a case of an exceedingly sick devil trying vainly to fit on a very unbecoming sort of halo. The. fact of the matter is, that this Bill aims at a great and grave social evil, a growing evil, and something which it is the duty of the legislature either to prevent or modify. The Bill is not presented with any idea of hindering honest and straight-forward agencies. It is aimed only at those who carry on the kind of work of which we complain, and, by carrying it on, inflict an intolerable social hardship upon the poorest of poor people, who have been helpless and inarticulate, because of their helplessness, and whose helplessness has been intensified by the struggle for existence. These people go to agents because the agents represent themselves as, and they are in too many cases, the only avenue by which such people can secure employment.
The Bill has the whole-hearted support of such bodies as the Stage Guild, the Film Artists' Association, the Actors' Association, the Theatrical Managers' Association and the West End Managers' Association, and it is backed in this House by members of all parties. While we heartily agree in suggesting that the object of the Bill ought to receive the sympathetic attention of the Government, we think that it is absolutely necessary the matter should be ventilated and that it cannot be better ventilated than by the introduction of a Bill into this House. Whatever the fate of the Bill may be I suppose no one here would care to prognosticate. We think that it is a Measure that should be given a chance of fair consideration by the House of Commons. It is in that spirit that I ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. DAY: rose——

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose?

Mr. DAY: Yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely, it is within my right if I have an objection to the Bill to explain it to the House, and then the House can use its own discretion whether it thinks my judgment correct or not. While I agree with my hon. Friend in most matters, and while I agree with him in most parts of the Bill as far as the protection of chorus girls is concerned, I think he has a long way overstepped the mark by introducing a Clause to provide that 10 per cent. only be paid to agencies for 10 weeks. Have the promoters of the Bill taken into consideration the fact that an agent sometimes does an enormous amount of work in bringing forward artists, such as Harry Lauder? My hon. Friend laughs, but if he had read the life of Harry Lauder, he would have noticed in that life that Harry Lauder had to walk about London trying very hard to get a job at £3 a week, and could not get it, and that it was only through an agent spending an enormous amount of time that he finally got him a trial show at Gatti's. To say that an agent should be entitled to commission for 10 weeks only in connection with an engagement such as that procured for Harry Lauder, is surely a suggestion which the House will regard as ridiculous. The hon. Member states that the Bill has the whole-hearted support of the profession, but I would remind him that the most powerful organisation in the profession, and one which has done more to uplift the profession than any other body, namely, the Variety Artists' Federation, which is a trade union and has the interests of the artists at heart, is against the Bill and thinks that it ought never to have been introduced. For these reasons, I beg to oppose the Bill.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to certain agencies and registries and for purposes in connection therewith.
put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rose, Mrs. Philipson, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Colonel Burton, Mr. Hayday,
Miss Bondfield, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cook, Mr. Sexton, and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair.

AGENCIES AND REGISTRIES BILL,

"to make provision with respect to certain agencies and registries; and for purposes in connection therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Wednesday, 4th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Patents and Designs (Convention) Bill, without Amendment.

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of eleven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Railway (Road Transport) Bills, pursuant to the Commons Message of Thursday last, and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall, on Thursday the 26th of April next, at Eleven o'clock.

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Railway (Road Transport) Bills considered:

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LLANDUDNO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES),

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Kelly; and had appointed in substitution: Miss Lawrence.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill): Sir William Davison; and had appointed in substitution: Sir William Perring.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PERILS OF SOCIALISM.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the grave dissensions which exist amongst leaders of the Socialist party and within the party itself on vital issues of public policy, considers that the formation of a Socialist government would be a source of danger to the nation.
When I had the good fortune, for the first time, to draw any place whatsoever in the Ballot, after many years' trying. I thought that the least I could do was to endeavour to put down a Motion which would be of interest to all parties of the House, and, apparently, from the cheers with which it has been received, I have succeeded in doing that. A complaint was made last week that, although we had had considerable luck in the Ballot, the Motions brought forward by Members of the Tory party had lacked vigour. I think the specific word used was "pep"; and I have done my humble best to supply the want. This Motion is strongly worded ; and it is meant to be. I am naturally dealing only with the political outlook of hon. Members opposite, because for the greater number of them I do entertain the highest personal regard; and I am quite sure that they are just as sincere in their convictions as I hope I am in mine. But these convictions, in the opinion of most hon. Members on this side of the House, are so confused and so divergent, so full of menace to the trade and credit of this country, that we are entitled to regard the possible advent of a Socialist Government to power as well as to office as a danger to the nation.
Socialists believe, or would have us believe, that they are going to be returned to power next year, although I am bound to say that they are not quite so confident as they were before the results of the recent by-elections. It is fair to assume, therefore, that they have decided what they are going to do and what particular form of blessings they are going to pour on this country. It is not only those who differ from them who are asking these questions, but also their own followers in the country are getting
tired of gazing at the Promised Land, which never seems to get nearer, tired of waiting for a taste of that milk and honey which they have been promised again and again, and sick and tired of wandering across the wilderness, which is apparently covered with very bad patches. In view of this Debate, I have been perusing somewhat more carefully than usual some of their own literature. I found a very interesting article in a recent issue of the "New Leader" to this effect:
Labour is suffering from the lack of a clear concise programme upon which to fight and is likely to remain so unless they can be heartened by a definite sign that they are fighting for something more than vague phrases.
That is a little unkind to the Leader of the Opposition. Again, in the "Socialist Review" for this month, Mr. E. F. Wise, who is one of their ablest thinkers and to whom a large section of a page in the "Labour Who's Who" is devoted, writes:
The admitted slowing down of the Labour progress in these last few months is due to the lack of a clear and accepted programme for which the party could fight.
And then Mr. Wise complains that there has not been a clear statement issued, and that people are not quite satisfied that Labour can deliver the goods—they are not even sure that Socialism itself will work. Who can blame them? If Socialists cannot tell us what Socialism is, how in heaven's name can they say whether it will work or not? Not trusting entirely to these active politicians, I have done my best to get some guidance by outside research; but the task, I must say, is rather a difficult one. I have done my best to study the three stout volumes of the "Encyclopædia of the Labour Movement," and there I have come across this delicious definition of Socialism:
We are as far as ever from a satisfactory definition, but this is perhaps as much the strength of Socialism as its weakness.
This is really a typical Socialist argument; for, while appearing to possess some sort of deep significance, it is absolutely meaningless. I turn from that to Rapoport's "Dictionary of Socialism," and between pages 36 and 41—I commend these pages to hon. Members—I find no fewer than 40 definitions of Socialism. These definitions run from that of the highly respected Leader of the Opposition
to that of Comrade Bakunin of Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a Russian!"] The Leader of the Opposition, at the end of his definition, winds up with this phrase:
It is an application of mutual aid to politics and economics.
If I may humbly say so, that is the very triumph of obscurity. What form then is this Socialism to take? Is it to take the form of the Socialism of the Labour party, when it is evolved? Is it the Socialism of the Independent Labour party? Is it to be State Socialism, guild Socialism, Christian Socialism, or the Socialism of the Union of Soviet Republics? Is it to be any of these forms, or is it to be all of them? Hon. Members roust not forget that the brand as well as the hour of introduction are both uncertain. We on this side of the House must not forget that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), whom we all look upon with the deepest respect, says that:
Anyone who reads the constitution of the Labour party will find that it is a Socialist party.
There are some hon. Members in this House, and many people outside, who seem to show a great distaste at being called Socialists. "Socialism in our time" is like a red rag to a bull to some of them. They are afraid of it, but, on the other hand, there are many hon. Members opposite who whole-heartedly welcome that idea and that phrase. Let me take statements by three of their accepted leading men. The Leader of the Opposition in "Forward" says:
I deplore the cry Socialism in our time ' for several reasons, but especially for this, that it will postpone our success until the Greek Kalends.
That statement requires no further comment. Then the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), for whom everyone in this House has the deepest personal respect, writes:
Gradualism is the only possible way to substantial and permanent progress towards Socialism.
On the other hand, what is the opinion of one of the most eloquent speakers of the Socialist party and the potential leader of their party, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)? In his presidential address to the Independent
Labour Party at Leicester, he made use of this sentence, which is very illuminating:
The Independent Labour party in my view is right when it says that we want Socialism in our time.' We see on the one hand the pathway of reformism or gradualism as it is called to-day, one which makes a tremendous appeal to our sanity, one which we can accept when we are sitting comfortably before our fire with our carpet slippers on and our suppers just eaten. But it does not do when we walk through the East End of our constituencies.
We are to take it, I suppose, that the two right hon. Gentlemen are merely armchair Socialists. All that I can suggest is that it must have been a very deep and a very comfortable armchair that drew from the right hon. Member for Seaham. (Mr. Webb) that somewhat soporific slogan, "the inevitability of gradualness," which be presented to his dismayed followers at an annual conference of the party some years ago. Really it is time that we had some definition of what Socialism is to be and what Socialists mean by the word. We all remember that good old moss-covered resolution which year after year used to be dug out and re-dug out at Labour conferences, and which concerned "the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange." But Socialists themselves are tired of that definition. It now raises no enthusiasm in their ranks. Mr. Wise, whom I have previously quoted, has recently stated that it now makes the elector not only impatient but almost blasphemous. In fine, hon. Members opposite have not decided, and they cannot decide, what they are going to do or how they are going to do it. In other words, we are entitled to ask the question, are hon. Gentlemen opposite a party at all? With the exception of the attempt to put themselves in office, are they agreed on any policy whatsoever, constructive or otherwise? [Interruption.]
If hon. Members do not agree with what I am saying let us take a few tests. I could suggest dozens, but I do not want to take up too much time. Let us, as the first test, take the recent troubles in China. We all remember what happened there. There was a call from our own people, a call from some 15,000 British men, women and children who were in Shanghai and other Treaty ports,
who were doing legitimate trading, the result of which legitimate trading meant much for the employment of labour in this country. All right thinking people here feared that they were in dire trouble and distress. The Government did the only thing that any self-respecting Government could do—it sent out troops to look after its own people. With regard to that, what was the opinion of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? In a speech which he made at Belfast he said:
It was the same typo of mind that sent the Black and Tans to massacre the Irish who now hold sway in London, and they were just itching to treat the Chinese in the same way. Let me tell Mr. Baldwin and his Government that before they are through with this affair, we Socialists will have the working classes in Great Britain on the side of the Chinese.
And the hon. Member added this:
They all knew perfectly well that they wore on the eve of war, and that at any time they might read that their fellow-countrymen had butchered thousands of Chinese.
Not a few hon. Members supported the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. What did we get from the Opposition Front Bench? From certain Members we got., as we would expect to get, a statement that, no matter what Government was in power, it was the duty of that Government to defend its own nationals. But notwithstanding those statements from the Front Bench, when our forces were on the way, their recall was demanded by the Socialist party and left and right voted for it. There was only one man who refused to toe the line, Dr. Haden Guest. Where is he now? [Interruption.] If hon. Members are proud of the action they took they are welcome to their pride.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must remember that this is one of the Private Members' days. Surely Private Members in the House ought to see that proper consideration is given to a speaker.

4.0 p.m.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I am trying my best not to be abusive. I admit that this is a difficult subject, because we take entirely divergent views about it. I am doing my very best to state what I feel very strongly, as the views of myself and, I believe, of most of my hon. Friends here, and I do not want in any way to hurt the feelings of those who find political
opponents among their friends. If in my blunt Yorkshire fashion I have put things too abruptly, let it be understood that I do not mean to hurt anyone. But I do mean everything I shall say and have said. As a second point, think the House on all sides and at all angles is agreed as to the immense importance to this country of the subject of trade. It is more important to this country than to any other country in the world, for in this small island one person in three is dependent for the necessities of life and for food on what we get from overseas. We cannot afford to make experiments as can great agricultural countries abroad. At the moment we rejoice on this side to see that both capital and labour are doing what they can to help forward peace in industry. I welcome, as we all welcome, the statement of my good friend the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. T. H. Thomas), who, incidentally, leaves this afternoon for the Gold Coast. I am sure that every Member of the House wishes him a safe voyage and a happy return and a successful visit. The right hon. Member stated this:
There is no short road to a solution of the troubles and problems of the day. In mutual good will is the hest opportunity of meeting them.
I am certain that every hon. Member on this side of the House will support a sentiment of that kind. I wish intensely that we could work together on what is one of the most outstanding problems that we have to tackle to-day. But is the party opposite in favour of peace in industry, or is it desirous of smashing British trade as we know it to-day and destroying the work of centuries? Do hon. Members opposite agree with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) who occupied for some time the honourable position of President of the International Federation of Trade Unions. This is what that hon. Member stated:
Our mutual task is to unite for the destruction of capitalism.
Do we take it, then, that if and when the Socialist party achieve office, or power, or both, they will east into the melting-pot the trade and commerce of this great country? There is one other point on which I would like to illustrate the divergence of opinion of hon. Members opposite, and that is with regard to
another subject, also of outstanding importance—the subject of the living wage. The hon. Member for Bridgeton, to whom I have just referred as a potential leader of the party, in a speech made at Ayr stated that
As things were now, less than £4 a week was not a living wage.
Every Member on all sides would like, of course, to see the very best wages possible paid in this country, and you know it is true. But this statement was too much for the financial conscience of one of the very ablest Members you possess—the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know all that!"] It is worth while rubbing it in again and again.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now forgetting to address the Chair.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I found some hon. Members opposite so interesting that I was drawn away. The right hon. Gentleman, in explaining at some length and very interestingly exactly what this suggestion would cost the country, concluded by saying:
If the Labour Government established a legal minimum wage of £4 a week, the week after there would be no wages at all for anybody.
That is the sound horse-sense we would expect from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MAXTON: Would the hon. Gentleman point out exactly where the contradiction lies between my statement and that of my right hon. Friend?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I think the difference lies in this, that if the hon. Gentleman's proposal were carried into effect, the country would be bankrupt inside a week. If the Socialist leaders came into power with the wing to which the hon. Member belongs, this ill-balanced, visionary finance would be a danger which we would have to face. And the left wing of the party opposite is working hard; we will give them full credit for that. Day in and day out they spare no pains to advance their cause, and if they make good, what would happen to the moderate leaders we see to-day? We know well that they they would find themselves in the position occupied by Gilbert's hero, the Duke of Plaza Toro, and we all know how humiliating and
difficult it is to lead from behind. While all that was taking place, where would this poor old country be? It would be possible to enumerate many more of these instances. I will take another one, and I shall be followed by those far more capable than myself in carrying out these comparisons. I should like to conclude with this. Perhaps the most disquieting phase in this matter is the line which has been consistently taken by a large section of hon. Members opposite with regard to the defensive forces of the country. In 1924, when the Opposition were in office, an Amendment was put down by their own supporters to reduce the Army from 157,500 to 7,500, and the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) who seconded said:
I am prepared to admit that this Amendment means the abolition of the Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1924; col. 131, Vol. 171.]
That is not quite in accordance with our ideas as to the safety of this realm. But it might not be against the rules to get rid of a few tiresome people in this country, because the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) said:
He would be prepared to shoot and kill, if necessary, in order to uphold the principle of government by the people.
A very pleasant prospect for the future! In 1925, on the Air Force Vote of 36,000 personnel, the hon. Member for Shore-ditch moved to reduce that number by 35,000, to arraign, as he said, the waste and futility of all armaments, and 26 Socialists and one Communist voted for the Amendment. A similar Amendment was put down in 1927 by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby). A stalwart of the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), has done what he can to reduce the Navy by 100,000 men. These attempts to cripple our Fighting Services are typical of what we might expect should the Socialist party come into power. If it had its way, this country would be defenceless. We should be at the mercy of all who cared to attack us. We should be powerless to maintain this great Empire, which has taken so many centuries to build up. It would mean the decline and fall of the British Empire, and that fall would be irretrievable. Have we not then every right to look upon the possible advent of the Socialists with suspicion
and alarm? Can we trust those who, within their own ranks, are continually criticising, condemning and exposing their many and varied sections? Without a policy, without a plan, at war with each other, without order and discipline, they aspire to control the affairs of this great nation. In my opinion, it would be a national disaster if they ever succeeded in getting this opportunity.

Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I beg to second the Motion.
I associate myself entirely with the able speech which we have just heard from my hon. Friend. There can be nothing more discouraging to a certain section of a political Opposition than the prosperity of the country. To them, any improvement in the national life is not only a menace, but something that must be belittled, and, if possible, frustrated, especially when they know that their own principles are mainly specious, and that their policy to a large extent is unworkable. Then their only chance of power lies in the maxim that the greater the discontent the greater the desire for a change. I trust that the official Opposition will not for one moment consider that I am referring to them. It would be most unfair to condemn them without first having given one's reasons, and with- out first having examined their records.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member to read his speech to this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not observe that the hon. and gallant Member was reading his speech. All Members do not speak quite so frequently as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy), and he must not deny to more modest Members the assistance of notes.

Captain REID: I was saying that it would not be fair to make such an accusation without first having examined their record. They have stated on many platforms throughout the country that they are the only party in this country which represents the real interests of the workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with that. That being so, I presume that they will agree with me when I say that the general strike which they organised a short while ago——[An
HON. MEMBER: "It was not a strike; it was a lock-out !"]——was somewhat of a mistake on their part. I do not think that with any stretch of imagination they could claim that that strike was intended to help the workers of this country. Anyhow, I will leave it at that for the moment. After all, we are all human, and inclined to make mistakes. I will pass on to an examination of their record before that time, and go back to the interesting period when they were the Government of this country. A growing number of people throughout Great Britain are realising that Empire development more than anything else in the future is likely to help the workers of this country. That being so, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, they curtailed Empire development at every turn. It has been proved, and I think proved conclusively, that Imperial Preference tends to the advantage of the workers of Great Britain. Is it not somewhat strange, therefore, that they refused when they were in office any extension of Imperial Preference?
Then I come to the safeguarding and the McKenna duties. It has been shown indisputably by returns and figures that these duties have proved of immense use to the industries of this country. Therefore, I think I am at liberty to ask why, at the first opportunity, they repealed those particular duties? Next is the question of Protection. I do not think that anyone doubts that the party opposite is against Protection; yet I would like to know how they reconcile their claim to be the only party in this country that protects the workers, with the fact that they do not attempt to protect the work of the workers? After all, that is what Protection amounts to. Is it not rather a significant fact that the Socialist party of this country is the only Socialist party in the world which has not adopted Protection and put it in the forefront of its programme Could the reason for that possibly be that many years ago the Conservative party adopted it before them? There is a political school of thought which advocates, when in Opposition, being against everything that is likely to be of advantage to the workers, on the assumption that if they are successful they will create discontent and so prove that Capitalism is a failure. Of course, I am casting no aspersions. Neverthe-
less, I have great pleasure in seconding this Motion which ends with the words,
That the formation of a Socialist Government would be a source of danger to the nation.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
is of opinion that, in view of the widespread change in industry in the direction of syndicate, combine, and trust, side by side with material insecurity affecting large numbers of the people, there is no foundation for the fear of an economic system based upon the principles of public ownership and control.
A year or two ago the House of Commons had one of its most important discussions when my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) tabled a definitely Socialist Motion and, from that time onwards, a large section of the Press and practically all our opponents in this country ceased to describe oars as the Labour movement and started to call it the Socialist movement. For my part, I welcomed that name because it established a clear distinction between the economic principles of hon. Members opposite and the principles in which we on this side believe. There is not the least doubt that it is entirely in the public interest that a distinction of that kind should be drawn in What I would call the fundamentals of our public controversy. I do not take the slightest objection to the form in which the two hon. Members have presented their case. The hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) had a breezy and even obstreperous passage. The Seconder was brief, but we on this side waited in vain, first for any definition of Socialism, and, in the second place, for any reference whatever to the industrial problems of the time. There was no analysis of the industrial system. There was no recognition of the great change which has taken place in the industrial system under the auspices of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their predecessors. There was a collection of newspaper headings—if I may say so without offence—and some remarks about the views of leaders and prospective leaders. Then there was a grave reference to the perils of something which bad not been defined, and when a thing is not defined
it is rather difficult to work up any belief that it will be a peril in any shape or form.
Let us try to get down to the cold facts of the situation. I recognise that to do so will not be nearly as entertaining as the spectacular matter of my hon. Friend opposite who introduced the Motion. On paper, the Government and its supporters, and also, to an appreciable extent the Liberal party in this country, are telling us that it will be dangerous if we embark to any extent upon Socialist principles in the conduct of our industry and commerce. Let us see how far that argument is applicable to the facts. It is quite true that, within the limits of the existing system, with all its modifications, certain improvements in the condition of the people have taken place. Progress of a kind has been made. The last analysis for the year 1924, by two eminent economists, showed that quite a considerable section of the British people had maintained their economic positions even as compared with pre-War days—a subject perhaps open to some debate. We, on this side of the House, are familiar with the ramifications of building societies and the co-operative movement and a number of other enterprises, which, with the trade unions, have contributed to some extent to the security of the people.
That is all common ground, but when we have made allowance for that progress two great facts remain. The first is that a large section of the British people is still exposed to widespread and recurrent material insecurity. The second is that all this development, admittedly, does not solve the problem of ownership in industry, and it is only when we approach ownership—and that is the essence of the Socialist case—that we are dealing with fundamentals at all. Every thing else is, so far, mere debate on the surface of affairs. The Government and hon. Members opposite are anti-Socialist. They are opposed to public ownership and control. They are theoretically in favour of free competition or individualism, as some of the humorists of the time describe it. Let us take three examples within comparatively recent times and seek to understand among ourselves exactly what has happened. In the past 25, 30 or 50 years there has been a widespread development of municipal activity, There has also been a considerable extension of State enterprise in various
directions—much of it promoted before the war, some of it encouraged by wartime conditions, but, in any case, on a larger scale than that with which we were familiar 14 or 15 years ago. If hon. Members opposite stand absolutely true to the individualist principle, it is plain that they must view all developments of that kind with distrust, but the fact remains that in their own legislation considerable extension along those lines has taken place, and they do not propose, I understand, to go back upon it.
Accordingly, there is a grave unreality, or lack of reality, in their description as "a peril" of something which they themselves have been driven to recognise and enforce. It is perfectly idle to say that public ownership is a danger to the community—as I have often heard it said—when we know that hundreds of millions of capital in this country is owned and controlled already upon those lines. I do not make more of that part of the case this afternoon because it is familiar ground and is perhaps not to the same extent as other aspects of the question a subject of acute controversy in the State. I pass to a second sphere of far greater importance. Hon. Members who believe in purely private enterprise must be impressed by the remarkable degree to which they themselves have regulated and controlled industry within recent years. I need only give three illustrations. It is true that the form of private ownership remains or, let us say, the bondage—the economic bondage—in which it works..The first instance is that of the Railways Act of 1921. There you had a situation covering £1,300,000,000 of British capital which was profoundly affected by War conditions. It was not a Socialist upstairs in Committee or on the Floor of this House, but an individualist—afterwards President of the Federation of British Industries—who told Parliament that we could not face post-War transport problems in Great Britain with 100 or more so-called competing railway undertakings. So he amalgamated them. He formed great geographical trusts with substantially this amount of capital, and he did more than that. He proceeded to hedge in these amalgamations with various forms of control embodied in a direction to the Rates Tribunal so to fix the rates and charges as to standardise the return on
this block of capital in terms of the year 1913.
I well remember the arguments which were led by the then representative of the City of London, who was chairman of one of the largest railway companies. If he did not actually describe the Bill as an extreme form of regulation and quasi-Socialism, he certainly used words to that effect. But all I am seeking to prove at the moment is that, on the question of purely private enterprise and control, in regard to one of the largest undertakings in this country, hon. Members themselves, with all their anti-Socialist notions and views against regulation have been driven far along the road of regulation. In point of fact, since that time, traders have said that they would have been better with a business-like form of public ownership of the railways than they are within the terms of the Act of 1921 with only the right of appearance before the Rates Tribunal, hedged in by conditions which I have just indicated. There is one great inroad on the principle of perfectly private control and I am not ignoring the fact that, long before that date, railways were regulated to some extent. The purpose of this part of the argument will be seen later.
We now come to certain very interesting circumstances regarding electricity as another illustration. Both in 1919 and 1926 a strongly anti-Socialist Government was in office in this country. The first proposal concerning electricity, that of 1919, was to set up compulsory areas with powers, the details of which I need not recall, for the purpose of regulating the production and distribution of electricity as a great industrial essential in Great Britain. That Measure was modified beyond recognition during the Committee stage and emerged very largely a voluntary or permissive scheme. Several years passed, and in 1926 there was provided, at the hands of three or four individualists—not Socialists—the most striking condemnation of a privately-run system, with an admixture of regulation, that has probably ever been penned in this country applied to a great industry. These gentlemen said, in effect, that we had wasted large blocks of capital owing to the manner in which we had allowed this industry to proceed and that we would be driven to drastic regulation and control. In due course, this Government
—not a Socialist Government—introduced the Act of 1926, in which they set up a Central Electricity Authority regulating production over by far the greater part of the field and proposing a guarantee of £33,300,000 at the hands of the taxpayers of Great Britain for the grid iron and central system of transmission.
That is the broad outline of the Measure which was then introduced. But what did we find? We found that about two-thirds of the field was already occupied by the municipalities, and our case was that you could then quite easily have made it a purely public enterprise. But the Government were anxious to cling to anti-Socialist practice, as far as they could, and so they left the country with a mixture of public ownership and public regulation, and a certain block of capital, held in economic bondage of a very real kind, in the hands of a limited number of private owners. I suggest that that can never be a solution of any important part of the industrial problem. But I mention that as another illustration to show the complete lack of reality in the Motion which the hon. Member has proposed. Here, in electricity, you recognise an important aspect of Socialism. You did not say so when you were promoting that Bill in the House of Commons. You regulated it or brought it so far into contact with the rest of the field, in our judgment, in a way which left it open to grave criticism and which I have no doubt some succeeding Government, under happier auspices, will be compelled to amend.
The third illustration I will give is one chosen also under the auspices of this anti-Socialist Administration. Broadcasting began in Great Britain as an enterprise leased out to the British Broadcasting Company. It is quite true that from the very start a development of that kind lent itself to public regulation—that is beyond all dispute—but when a Committee was appointed in 1925 to consider the future of this system, which Committee was presided over by a Conservative Member of the House of Lords and included only one Socialist—and could, therefore, be trusted to present a perfectly impartial Report—that Committee reported unanimously in favour of the termination of the licence and the establishment of a, purely public corpora-
tion in this great and developing service. The highest tribute was paid to the pioneer work that the British Broadcasting Company undertook; and the £70,000 of capital subscribed by those men was returned with an acknowledgment of thanks, that being a sum which was exactly what they had put into the undertaking in its pioneer days.
In due course, under the auspices of the Postmaster- General—who will not be accused of any particular love for our movement, and who has from time to time delivered speeches which, in my judgment, exceed in violence anything I have ever heard on a Labour platform—two agreements were presented to the House of Commons, and I had to say at the time that there were no two agreements ever submitted to this Assembly which represented so complete a presentation of the case, in a constructive form, of public ownership or Socialism in a great essential service. He set up five Commissioners, making them trustees and stewards for the public; he regulated the terms of the agreements under which they were to work ; he gave them a certain amount of elasticity, which is exactly what we propose under a democratic scheme of public ownership; and, at the end of the day, eliminating all question of private profit, the annual surplus goes back to the National Exchequer or to the taxpayers of Great Britain.
I should have thought hon. Members opposite, if they were in favour of private ownership and control, would have drawn the line at a development like that, and would have said that it would undeniably be used by the Socialists, when they came into office and power later with a working majority, as a model for some of the transition, at least, to public ownership and control which they have in mind. But, of course, hon. Members opposite and the Government of the day, in this and other connections, were driven along the line either of complete public ownership or at least of public control. There was no means of escape, and that is, of course, further proof of the absence of reality in this Motion which seeks to warn the country against the perils of the very thing which hon. Members opposite themselves have been compelled so far to encourage.
I come in the next place to another very interesting field, and with this part
of the analysis I must conclude. Some 30, 40 or 50 years ago, certainly over by far the greater part of last century, you had something resembling free competition in this country, but who in this House, in any part of this House, denies the literally amazing extent to which that free competition has now been modified? Take any branch of industry and commerce that we like. Take, if we please, retail trade. There, on paper, we have the small shopkeepers competing one against another in their individual establishments. But go behind the scenes, and we find that they are regulated as regards price by trade associations, that a large number of them are in the pockets of wholesale houses, that, in point of fact, they do not get their supplies unless they undertake to sell at a certain price; and if any hon. Member opposite wishes to have an example of that extreme regulation, let him go to a. body like the Proprietary Articles Trade Association, and he will find that any chemist or shopkeeper who undercuts to the very slightest extent will be automatically deprived of access to the supplies until he too comes into line with the price level or the price list which they make.
So, of course, in innumerable other industries that one could name. The truth is that you have the paper appearance of competition. You have a little scramble for trade in a locality on a geographical basis, but when you get down to the fundamentals of the problem, you have no real competition as affecting the consumer at all, because these industries are regulated, body, soul and spirit, I had almost said, but perhaps more accurately from top to bottom. Then, as regards these retail trades, we see them in the City of London and all over the country passing into chains of stores, in which the names remain over the shops, but with only managers inside, supplied with prices, told to work to that schedule, and, if they do not succeed, no doubt speedily replaced by others. But what is the use of hon. Members opposite, in a department of industry or trade like that, speaking about perfectly free corn-petition and its advantages to the consumers of this country, when they know as a matter of fact that to an appreciable extent that has altogether disappeared?
Let us examine the problem at rather closer quarters. All of us have been impressed by the growth of syndicates, combines, and trusts, to which development we make reference in our Amendment. Ages ago—it seems ages ago, though it is only 20 or 30 years ago—on all our platforms we were directing attention to the growth of combines in the soap trade, cotton thread, and other important commodities of that kind. They have made, of course, remarkable progress within recent years. You have now a wide field covered, in iron and steel, the interlocking directorships everywhere, and trusts in newspapers, in practically all important commodities, and not commodities which are normally run on a public utility basis at all, but in commodities which we should say off-hand commend themselves to competition. Even there this development has taken place, and side by side with it you have enormous changes in the organised production of articles like chemicals and in steel and many others which could be named.
A short time ago, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who took the leading part in opposing my right hon. Friend's Motion on Socialism a year or two ago, was at the head of a vast combine in chemicals covering £56,000,000, for what purpose? For the purpose of promoting competition? Not at all; for the purpose of getting rid of competition, for the express purpose, as he said in a public speech, of meeting the difficulty from America on the one side, but more important, the competition of Germany and certain other European countries on the other. Here was this enthusiastic individualist and anti-Socialist, who joined the Conservative party for the express purpose of saving the country from the perils to which the hon. Member has drawn attention in his Motion, engaged in this spectacular attack on Socialism even while he is crucifying competition behind the scenes, because he is driven to that course of action, as other important industrialists have been.
Small wonder that the Socialists can afford to smile at the economic futility of hon. Friends opposite. They, not less than we, are just as much in the bondage of this system, and all that we are asking them to do, from this side of the House, is not to go on in this unreal atmosphere, but to face the cold facts of the situation.
And not so long ago the "Economist," a newspaper which will not be accused of Socialist bias, analysing, for the express purpose of bringing the facts home to the British people, the proposals of four countries in Europe to combine in a great international steel organisation, again for the express purpose of regulating prices to the individual and getting rid of this wasteful competition, to use the phrase that is constantly employed by the opponents of the Socialist movement—a remarkable development in our industrial system. All these things are, I trust, perfectly plain, but, of course, we have gone beyond that in recent times, and we have the full-blown trust operation itself, but before we arrive at that, may I remind the House of illustrations which are occurring every day?
Coal is in no ordinary economic plight. When the Bill was under consideration in this House a year ago, we pleaded strongly from these benches that the situation was then such that we must have compulsory amalgamation of these collieries at the very least. We stand for public ownership, but I am waiving that in debate for the moment. What happened? You did that in electricity, you did that in railways, but you leave it undone in the fundamental commodity on which both depend, and the result is that, very soon afterwards, you have these colliery owners in South Wales, Yorkshire, and now in Scotland, entering into price agreements and something like quota arrangements, for the express purpose, and so far at the expense of the home consumer, of subsidising their export trade. They say, "We have got to be done with this price-cutting and all its dangers." But I had understood that price-cutting was for the service of the consumer and one of the principles of competition! If hon. Members opposite believe in the competitive system, may I ask them one simple question? Why do not they let it compete? It is an extraordinary thing that we find them on the platform defending it with all the enthusiasm in their power, but behind the scenes getting rid of it at every stage.
The last point is this: We have arrived at the combine and the syndicate and the trust, it is true, but we have not got that great movement developed to the same extent as we have it in the United States
of America, though it is making very rapid progress in this country. I am going to ask hon. Members opposite, and in all parts of the House, Do they imagine for a moment that that is the last word in ownership in industry? Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), discussing this point in an anti-Socialist speech, said that Liberalism would seek to regulate the trust, and I could not help remembering the long line of anti-trust legislation in the United States of America. Take these Acts of Parliament, and is it not true that the industrial interests have succeeded in driving a coach and four through practically all the anti-trust legislation which was ever devised? Here and there it has interfered with them or modified their activities a very little, but they have invariably got round a difficulty of that kind, and you have had vast trust enterprises, great blocks of capital capable of influencing public opinion and settling the economic practice of millions of people, in which you have not got the people directly represented for the purpose of presenting their views and legitimately protecting their interests.
What we say to hon. Members is this, that the choice in this country to-day is not between free competition on the one hand and public ownership and control on the other. The choice is between some form of constructive and democratic public ownership and great trust operation and control. That is the choice which the people of this country have to make. We move our Amendment because we believe it is consistent with economic truth. We believe that hon. Members opposite are economically, so to speak, living ill a world which has largely passed away. And we are satisfied that when the people of this country appreciate the real issue, our victory will be emphatic and complete.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I would ask the house to be patient for only a short time, in order to permit me to place my point of view, which I believe to be the only possible point of view, for any genuine form of Socialism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) rightly charged the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) the Mover of the Motion with not defining Socialism, and with not making clear what it was that he
was attacking. The Mover did refer to the fact that, in one of the responsible Labour publications, he found the reproduction of about 40 different definitions of Socialism. Misunderstanding has been created by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh by the instances which he gave of some activities of industries which are under so-called public or municipal control, as if they could he a substitute for Socialism. Socialism and Capitalism are two entirely antagonistic forms. It is possible for Capitalism to extend and expand ownership from one individual to several individuals, as in the case of limited liability companies. It is equally possible to extend that ownership, that partnership to the citizens of a whole borough, town or city, as the case may be, in owning something through a municipal council. It may be equally possible, without at all disturbing the capitalist character of society, and without coming near Socialism, to extend the ownership of any particular enterprise to all the citizens of a country or a nation. The instances given of the way in which the Post Office is run were——

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that any permanent change has taken place in the leadership of the party opposite?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not responsible for matters of that kind.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg the House not to be misled into thinking that the ownership of the postal service, or a system of tramlines or transport, or the Broadcasting Corporation has any real bearing on genuine Socialism. It is merely an enlargement of the number of shareholders. Let me take, for illustration, the Post Office. It is the height of absurdity to say that the Post Office system, within a capitalist country and a, capitalist form of society, is a Socialist organisation. It is nothing of the sort.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it private enterprise?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is private enterprise as it is; it is not a Socialist organisation in any shape or form. The only difference is that the shareholders are all the citizens of the nation, but it
is a capitalist form and system. When the Post Office wants to erect buildings, it goes to a profiteering contractor. That is not Socialism. It fills the pockets of private profiteers. If it wants mail vans, it again goes to private profiteers. If it wants pillar boxes, it goes to another private company. If the Post Office wants postage stamps, it goes to a private company and buys the paper and gives a printing contract. There is no Socialism about a post office in a capitalist country. There is certainly the compensation that the shareholders are so expanded that everybody within the State stands to lose or gain by its losses or profits. That is the difference, but that is not Socialism. The poor postmen working in the Post Office are no better off than men working for a private corporation or company. It is entirely wrong and misleading to say that this is a form of Socialism. This is where we differ in the Communist movement from the so-called Socialist movement, which looks at these forms of capitalism as Socialism. Though they have a Socialist form, they have a capitalist soul. The poor postmen have no voice in the control of the Post Office. Instead of a board of directors appointed by shareholders, it has a board appointed by the State.
There may be a little difference between private enterprise owned by a few individuals in a nation and an enterprise owned by all the individuals in a nation, but it is misleading today that that private ownership by all the persons in the State makes it a Socialist organisation. It is far from being a Socialist. organisation. I read last Sunday an article which the Mover of the Motion did not mention, though he was very copious in his references to literature. The article was in the "Sunday Graphic," and it was by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who launched a severe attack on Communism and Communist methods, and tried to speak of Socialism in terms of Capitalism, or in terns that would confuse everybody and lead to no clear issue at all. What was the gist of that article? What is the real problem before the country as between Socialism and Capitalism? It is not merely the question of extending the field to a larger number of shareholders: it is a question of overthrowing the system of private ownership and introducing public owner-
ship. It would become criminal for an individual to own land or houses or places of industry. Such a society would be quite a different society. If such a society were introduced, it is futile and absurd to argue that the whole of the social structure of the nation would quietly remain what it was and that the relationship of man to man within the State would continue to be what it was. It is deceptive even to put forward such a proposition, and again I suggest, especially to my comrades within the Labour movement who aspire to be Socialists generally, to take the example of the Post Office or of the Broadcasting Corporation or of municipal tramways; the capitalist state of society has not been altered by merely widening the ownership. The position of the workers within these industries is absolutely the position of workers who are under the dictation of somebody not appointed by themselves. It is the capitalist. system.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh gave many points for serious thought with regard to trustification, but there again I want my Socialist comrades to understand that competition by itself has never been the object of capitalism. The object of capitalism has been the increase of the profits of the individuals in an industry. Competition has been used as a means to achieve that object. For example, somebody for a time is making a profit in a particular industry; another individual or corporation enters into competition, not for the benefit of the consumers, not out of a sportsmanslike spirit to oblige the world by producing a cheaper article, but to make a higher profit. Competition in itself has never been the object of capitalism and individual ownership. It is a means which is used at certain times only. When the opposite takes place, when unregulated and uncontrolled competition endangers the profits of a particular corporation or several corporations or individuals, quite justifiably and without any inconsistency, the capitalist controllers of these industries combine to get rid of that instrument of competition in order to secure the ultimate motive, namely, the safeguarding of their profits. The mere abolition of the element of competition is not the victory of Socialism at all. It is still another power at the disposal of private
capitalism, either to use that competition or to submerge that competition, to reach the main objective, namely, the increase of the individual's profits. From those points of view, I submit that within this capitalist country there never has been an experiment in Socialism at all, and to people who have a right conception of Socialism it is a mistaken notion to imagine for a moment that Socialism can be introduced alongside capitalism, side by side, and gradually, and so on and so on. Such a thing would never happen; such a thing cannot happen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh gave us an example drawn from the coal industry to which I would specially direct the attention of genuine Socialists, not only here but all over the country. Is it really satisfying to the Socialist conscience to say that the coal industry of this country ought to be so pooled together and controlled as to secure for it a certain trade in coal in somebody else's country, doing this by measures and tactics which will create unemployment amongst the coal miners in Poland, Germany, Belgium, or elsewhere? Such a proceeding would not be Socialism, but merely nationalisation. To put under State control a particular national industry, with the same objects as the capitalist owned and controlled industries, does not bring us any nearer the attainment of Socialism.
If we were to apply the real principles of Socialism to the coal mines, the first consideration would be to secure the control of the miners themselves over their own industry. The first consideration of the miners who took charge of the British coal industry would be the welfare of the miners in the coal industry in Poland, in Belgium, in Japan, in India, in Africa, and elsewhere, and the firs, Socialist step would not be to pool the British coal but to pool the world's coal, and arrive at such a position that all miners in all parts of the world would be employed and all the coal produced by them would be of some use to all the nations of the world. The nationalisation of the coal industry in one country does not take us nearer Socialism, but may even strengthen the Capitalist atmosphere and the Capitalist structure of society, in which this sort of nationalisation is practised.
To come back to the argument used by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in last Sunday's "Sunday Graphic" in his futile attack upon Communism. What does the right hon. Leader of the Opposition mean to say? I have no hesitation in saying that he is not in a position to say what. he wants to say. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he has to attack the Communist party, because he has got to attack the one country which has achieved Socialism, and has also to keep up the appearance Of preaching Socialism.

Mr. W. THORNE: Which country is that?

Mr. LAMB: Will the hon. Member say which country has achieved Socialism?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: If you have patience you will have the whole story. We as a nation, and all other nations, are concerned not merely with the theory of Socialism but with the practice of Socialism; we are concerned not with expressions of pious hopes of what Socialism will do and what public ownership will lead to, but, as practical politicians, we are in duty bound to say how it is to come about. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition says in that notorious article in the "Sunday Graphic" that it will come by the democratic will of the majority of the' people, by learning lessons in Socialism. That is exactly the charge of the Communist party against the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, that instead of educating the electorate, and instead of telling them to adhere to Socialism, year after year he and his party are receding from and going against Socialism. There was a time when the Labour party and the Communist party had not such divergencies and such differences of opinion.

Mr. MONTAGUE: When was that?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: You will get the full story by and by. [Interruption.] I am putting this without any passion or personality. There is no doubt that that divergence between the Communists and Socialist groups, though Communism and Socialism are identical——

Mr. W. THORNE: Not on your life.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: My comrade here says, "Not on your life," but I think the recently published labour
encyclopædia will show that it is so. There is no difference between Communism and Socialism—take any ordinary dictionary and see. There is certainly an ever-growing difference and divergence between the Communist party in Great Britain and the Socialist party. I admit it quite candidly, and I do not suggest for a moment that in that ever-growing difference we are always the faultless party—we may be committing our errors and our individual faults. But the general picture is this, that since the revolution in Russia the Communist party are standing firm by one and the same programme. We are not adding anything to that, and the divergence does not occur because we want something more year after year but because the Socialist party want less and less Socialism year after year. At one time the Labour party of this country were agreeable to forming the Council of British Workers and Soldiers. At that time the Communists were agreeable to that proposition, and there was no difference of opinion between the two. To-day the fault is that the Communist party still demand that this country should be placed under the control of a council of workers and soldiers, and the Labour party does not want what it once wanted. The Council of Action was established by the Labour party in this country. There was no divergence between the Communist party and the Labour party on that.subject in those days. There is divergence today. To-day, the Communist party says that during the Chinese Expedition, during the Simon Commission, during the hundred and one struggles of the workers, there ought to have been councils of action all over the country amongst the working-class organisations. [Laughter.] My Labour Friends laugh at it. They did not laugh at it in 1921, and to-day they want to go away from the only method—the only method—which will introduce Socialism, and then allow the people to imagine that Socialism is to come in some unknown and mysterious way.
There is the question of the War Debts. There was a time when I, as a member of the Independent Labour party, had learned my lesson, within the Independent Labour party, that the whole of the War Debt of this country is blood money, is the result of undue profiteering during
the War, which every Communist and Socialist should repudiate. When that was the cry of the Labour party, the Communists and the Labour party stood together—nearer than to-day. Then the Labour party receded from that position, through the exigencies of Parliamentary vote catching, and brought it down to disallowing half the Debt instead of the whole of it. Then they came to the Capital Levy. They found the Communist party would be satisfied with it, but the divergence occurred not because the Communist party said, "Your Capital Levy of a half is not sufficient, make it three-quarters," but because the Labour party withdrew from the Capital Levy. To-day our objection is that when the country is appealed to, democratic support is sought not for Socialism, but for subterfuges and substitutes for Socialism.
The Surtax! I know it is rather a sore point. I have been bred and brought up in a capitalist business life myself, and I know the Surtax is never going to be a reality. If you impose the Surtax to-day, I can vouch for it that at least one firm have got their plans ready in the City of London to have dummy shareholders in Buenos Aires, Calcutta and Hong Kong in whose names large numbers of shares will stand, and there will not be many capitalist mugs who will allow all the shares to stand in their own name. [Interruption.] It is so. We do not quarrel with the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) when he is seriously appealing to democratic methods, but we quarrel with him because he is depriving the working class of the opportunity of learning Socialism and voting for Socialism. He is making it criminal now to have in the programme anything that is genuine Socialism. That is why, in the Amendment which I had hoped to move, but which I am not permitted to move, I point out that apart from the impracticability of the Surtax there is no Socialism in the Surtax. The principle of the Surtax is. "I will take 2s. in the pound out of your unearned profit, and I will then permit you to make 20s. of unearned profit." It is worse than the gambling business in which the Government have become shareholders. The Government will become shareholders in the unearned income of people who do not work and
who exploit the working class, living as parasites upon them. The Labour party says, "I will square my conscience if you give me 2s. out of 20s., and I will call it Socialism."

Mr. MONTAGUE: We do not call it Socialism.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Then comes the living wage. We would certainly agree that the living wage would be a great battle cry within a capitalist organisation inside a capitalist society, but it could only be useful to Socialism if it were used as a battle cry leading up to an industrial revolution in the end. [Interruption.] Certainly. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I do not for a moment blame him. He believes that, he says that and he means it. The living wage is not Socialism. How can a living wage be produced within a capitalist society? A living wage within a capitalist society cannot be produced as long as there is international competition. Lancashire cannot afford to pay £4 a week to spinners when capitalists can erect cotton factories in Shanghai and get people to work at 6d. or 8d. a day of 10 hours. In such cases Protection is no good at all. The people who sent out a Chinese expedition to Shanghai took away every protection from the Lancashire workers, and now no protection is possible. At the jute mills in Dundee the workers are not earning half a living wage, but how can you help that happening when the same fraternity of financiers are erecting jute mills in Calcutta, and paying miserably low wages to their workers. If you wish to establish a permanent living wage, it can only be done by applying similar conditions of labour all over the world, and that cannot be achieved by Great Britain nationalising her cotton and jute industry. Supposing you nationalised the jute industry in this country and it was not nationalised in Calcutta?

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member knows that I am interested in this point. Will he tell me whether it is not the case that in Russia M. Stalin does believe that a Socialist country can maintain itself and its conditions inside a capitalist world?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Not as the hon. Member puts it. The people of Russia want jute bags, and how are you going
to safeguard the living wage in the jute trade under your present system? All you can do is to shut down the jute mills whether they are nationalised or not. The only way in which the human interest can be safeguarded is by a complete understanding and the adoption of a uniform standard and hours of labour. We want to establish a uniform standard and hours for jute workers in America, Germany, Italy, Spain, and all other countries. It is obvious that in any real genuine Socialist system what is required is the control of the workers in the industry so that an understanding may be arrived at with the workers in the same industry in other countries. It is no use trying to evade that issue. The beginning of Socialism is not possible without a Socialist revolution. It is all very well to say that a capitalist world may exist and a Socialist state may exist and flourish within that world, but we are not concerned with that.

Mr. MAXTON: I was merely putting the point that that was the view of M. Stalin, who, when dealing with the present administration of Russia, said that a Socialist State can maintain itself in the midst of a capitalist world.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The word I quarrel about is "maintain" instead of "struggle." His point is that a Socialist State under those conditions cannot maintain itself at the full height of its prosperity. The point raised is whether militarism is to play its full part in attacking the neighbouring industrial countries, especially Poland and Germany, and that seemed to some to be an absolutely unavoidable condition of the existence of a Socialist Russia. The point is: Can the Soviet Republic accomplish its object without those military expeditions, and find sufficient elements at their disposal to maintain the struggle in spite of the attacks of surrounding capitalist countries?

Mr. MAXTON: And maintain themselves as a State.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: M. Stalin's argument is that, deplorable as the industrial development of Russia is at the present time, the needs and requirements of the people of Russia make them dependent upon other countries for manufactured articles which cannot be supplied in Russia, and owing to the backwardness and the apathy of the working-classes in
other countries that have not yet developed as far as a Socialist revolution. The teachings of Zinovieff and Trotsky try to prove the necessity of attacking Poland and Germany in order to incorporate the neighbouring countries in the Soviet Republic. There is still a sufficient modicum of industrial activity left within the Soviet Republic which could be built upon by some form of compromise with the capitalist countries and machinery could be adopted to keep up the Socialist struggle until Socialism is properly understood as something that can be introduced only through a Socialist revolution, and no humbug. It is no use trying to deceive ourselves on that point.
The workers in Great Britain should realise that God has not created man to be ruled dictatorially and autocratically by another man. Through self-determination and mutual consent we should elect somebody to rule who is not a Socialist boss, but a helper and adviser. If that is our essential belief, how can the people of this country believe that God has created the British Labour party to rule the Indians and the Africans in the way that they are being ruled? The leaders of the Labour movement say to the Indians and the Chinese, "We are ruling you; we are sending Commissions to your countries because you are less experienced and we are more experienced, and we want to be kind to you and tell you how you should live your lives." That is exactly what the capitalist masters and bosses are saying to the workers in this country. They say to them, "We are more experienced in directing industry than you are, and we keep an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force to protect you, because you are less experienced than we are." Socialism believes that that sort of incapacity is not inherent in human nature. How can the Labour party say that they are preaching Socialism and collecting the majority of voices in favour of Socialism when they are pursuing such a policy as I have described? The Labour party supports expeditions to China, the Colonies, and the Gold Coast ; in fact, one member of the Labour party has gone to visit one of those countries. How can those things go on? [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over to this side!"] An hon. Member opposite invites me to come over to the other side of the House, but,
if I took him seriously, I am sure he would be sorry for it. The hon. Member who invites me should read the first few lines of my Amendment.

Mr. W. THORNS: I invite you to read the last lines as well.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I believe in Socialism, because in my view all the devices adopted in the development of industrial life through individual ownership and capitalist control have ceased to produce any good for the workers. It has caused much degradation of human life and character within capitalist countries, and it is still more degrading and crushing as far as human life is concerned in the countries which have been conquered for the benefit of the capitalists. For those reasons, I do not believe in Tory politics, because there is no genuine Socialism at the back of Conservatism. Capitalism and individual control only create misery and do more harm than good. We hear a lot of people talking about their hard-earned wealth and savings, but what does it all mean? The capitalist society to-day is unjust. Consider the case of an honest man doing well, educating his children in a first-class institution and maintaining his wife in a luxurious manner. That man gets run over by a motor car and becomes incapacitated. Under the present state of society, that man will be forced immediately to sell up his home and withdraw his children from the university, and his family is crushed once and for all. That form of society is so unjust and cruel that I understand the justification of that man having savings in the bank, so that, when he meets with an accident, there is enough in his bank to enable his family to go on.
I will give another illustration. Take the case of an acknowledged criminal. Your present state of society says, "We punish him because he is dangerous to society," and you lock him up in a prison; but you take care that three times a day he is fed, you take care that once a week he is medically examined, you take care that he has open-air exercise once or twice a day, you take care of many things, realising your liability to human life, even though it be that of an acknowledged criminal ; and yet you disown all responsibility and liability to the innocent wife and children of the same
man, and throw them on the scrap-heap to starve—you are no longer responsible for the women and children who have not been criminals and have- committed no fault. In these circumstances, that wife and those children would certainly be happier if, out of the stolen property, some provision were set aside for them.
We have seen that there have been some rich criminals lately, and, when they have gone into prison, their wives and children have never had to go to the Board of Guardians or be locked up in workhouses; they were amply provided for. I wish that every burglar would steal, and first amply provide for his wife. [Interruption.] I quite see the point, but I urge this House and the country to realise that the very first principle of Socialism, the very first principle of a Communist State, the essential and fundamental principle, is that the State first assumes full liability and responsibility for the honourable and comfortable maintenance of all men, women and children as long as they honestly carry out their task; and, as long as society as a whole relieves the burden of these accidental catastrophes to individuals, that State is morally justified in denying the right of private ownership and private saving, which are no longer needed, and for which there is no moral justification. Therefore, I take it that, if Socialism, genuine and bona fide, is ever to be introduced, it can only be introduced with the immediate deprivation of the right of any individual to possess or own private land, private houses, places of industry, and, above all, human labour.
That being so, we know what will happen. It is our nature to struggle against that. We do not give up our own Parliamentary position so easily, we do not give up our little individual advantages which we create around us, and we are not under the delusion that a large, powerful, resourceful well organised class of capitalists, with its agents in all parts of the world, is going to say, "From tomorrow morning we deliver up our possessions." I do not say that that is impossible. It is not impossible, but it is very unlikely. It is not the Communist mind, it is not the Communist mentality, it is not the Socialist creed, but it is the individual capitalist greed that makes a revolution inevitable. On that account we say, without any delusion, that those
who demand Socialism, if they are true to their convictions, must first demand it by making it unlawful for any man to possess ally private property. If they sincerely mean to make that unlawful, then they must be prepared to back up their legislative effort by a Socialist revolution. And that is not all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time !"]
I apologise to the House for the length of time I am taking up in a short Debate, but I just want to make one important point. It is no use imagining that we shall suddenly have to-morrow morning a state of society in which there will be no private ownership, in which all industries will be nationalised, and in which the social structure will yet remain the same, so that a clerk will walk into the office and take his cap off as his master passes by and hide round the corner. We cannot for a moment imagine that the policy of private ownership, and of power in the hands of one individual to say, "You obey me, or I starve you and your wife and children," will remain; and, with that power gone, it is a complete delusion on the part of anyone to say that society will still remain as it is, because we shall have destroyed individual ownership through the ballot-box, and there is not the slightest doubt that there is going to be a complete revolution from that moment in the relationship of man towards man.
You may consider that the Russians were mad in reorganising their Army and turning into a Red Army instead of a capitalist Army; but the Red Army, its construction, its principles and its formation, the equal rights of the soldiers to political votes, their right to select their own officers and to dismiss their own officers, the right to pay their own officers —[Interruption]—do not you want me on your side now?—the right to pay their own officers the same wages as are paid to the ordinary man who risks his life, all these things are absolutely unavoidable consequences of establishing Socialism, and it is no use for a Socialist. party to say that, because we are going to alter the law through the ballot-box, therefore there is no need for the workers to be prepared for a Socialist revolution, there will not be a complete reversal of the present discipline of the Army, and it will not he followed by a complete destruction of what you call the
British Empire. Of course, it means the destruction of the British Empire. Of course, in all the Colonies, and in India and China, with the assistance of the workers, there will be the formation of the workers' organisations in those countries; there will be the overthrow of the zemindars, the landlords, the mandarins, the mineowners, and all of that class in those countries. There is not the slightest doubt that, if you mean to pursue Socialism, you will have to pursue it by the first step of declaring capitalism and individual ownership to be illegal.
The second step will be the inevitable Socialist revolution, not because a revolution is dear to the heart of the Communist or the Socialist, but because it is inevitable in the final struggle of those who possess individual property. There is not the slightest doubt that there will be a complete reversal of what you call law, order and discipline. Within offices, within factories, within the Army, within the police, within the Navy, within the Colonies and the relations of this country to the Colonies and the conquered countries, everywhere the workers will organise themselves into their own organisation, the peasants will organise themselves into their own organisation. and they will not only say, "This is possessed by the nation, and the Postmaster-General is ruling us," but the postmen and the miners and the railwaymen will say, "We have no Postmaster-General except the one that we appoint, and, if he goes on delivering obnoxious speeches, and recommends private enterprise in the Post Office, we will dismiss him within 24 hours."
That is the system, that is the control, that is Socialism. Whether the Labour leaders foresee that such a thing will scare away the voters or not, we say that the teachings and the lessons of the Labour party were responsible for what happened in Russia, and that the events of 1917 in Russia would have been impossible but for the great fraternal backing and support which the British working-class organisations gave to their suffering Russian comrades from 1902 right up to 1917. The Russian revolution would have been impossible but for that, and we say, similarly, that no pact, no contract, no wishy-washy phraseology in. Parliament, is going to keep the workers
of Britain in this perpetual slavery. The example and progress of the Socialist movement in Russia and the neighbouring countries——

Mr. MacLAREN: And in Battersea!

Mr. SAKLATVALA: And in Battersea, in spite of the Labour party's attempts now to drive Battersea out of existence—those very examples will create a genuine Socialist movement and a genuine Socialist revolution even in this country.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I am sure that the House must feel very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) for having introduced this Motion. I do not think we could have had a better example of what this Motion states, namely, that the party opposite are divided among themselves on vital issues, than the last few speeches from their benches. The hon. Member for North Battersea, (Mr. Saklatvala) has given us an interesting lecture on the subject of what I think we might call international syndicalism, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) made such a charming Tory speech that I almost felt that I was listening to one of the speeches usually delivered by Lord Banbury when he had a seat in this House. I can only say that I agree in many details with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of my own party. What this Motion really means is that the party opposite are so divided as not even to know among themselves what their principles are, or what their policy is, and, therefore, if by any chance they did resume the Government of this country, it would he a grave danger to the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh does not, I am sure, agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and yet they were both in the same Government not so very long ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, speaking quite recently, used these words:
There were only a few thousand British in China altogether. Very few of them were members of the working class.
He used those words in opposing the sending out by the Government of a body of troops to defend the lives.and property of our British fellow-subjects. I
suppose that my right hon. Friend opposite supported the. policy of his Leader, and advocated that we should hand over our position in China to Mr. Chen, who would immediately put the matter right and save our fellow-subjects. Of course, as we all know, Mr. Chen, within a very few weeks of the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition, had to fly to Russia, where, I believe, he still remains.
I do not wish to delay the House, for I know that there are many on both sides who want to speak on this subject, but it might possibly amuse some of my hon. Friends to hear a statement which was made, at the conclusion of the by-election in Ilford, by the Socialist candidate, a. very charming young fellow with an Oxford education. He said he was disappointed at the result of the election, but the Socialists always had two good friends working for them, the midwife and the undertaker. I did not quite follow what he meant at the moment., but I have analysed it since, and I suppose his theory is that when a baby is born into the world it starts life as a Socialist, perhaps when it cuts its teeth it becomes a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and when it cuts its wisdom teeth, apparently, it becomes a good Conservative, and remains a good Conservative until the undertaker ends its fortunes. I think we can take great comfort from that, that at any rate as people get older they get wiser, and as they get wiser they become sound, good Conservatives.

Mr. J. JONES: All sound and no good!

Sir G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member is always very noisy, and certainly makes plenty of sound in this House. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion, and I feel sure the speeches we have heard from the other side, especially the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea. will do a great deal of good in the country.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. SEXTON: The hon. Member who moved the Motion gave notice that he was going to call attention to the perils of Socialism. I listened patiently to his speech and the whole of it was devoted to pointing out that, as far as the Socialist party was concerned, there were no perils. The isolated case he produced
is the case of China. If he had paused to consider he would have found that the initial cause of the trouble in China was not the peril of Socialism but the peril of capitalism in China itself. I was in thorough disagreement with the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea, but he struck a true note when he said the real cause of all the trouble in China was not the perils of Socialism but the perils of the capitalist system. I listened with such patience as the circumstances would permit to the hon. Member's speech. If he could convince the proletariat that they could bring about exactly what he desires without firing a shot, surely it would appeal to him that that was the best, cheapest, safest and most humane way of doing it. I, for one, with all the examples he put before us" would very much regret to see the example of Russia followed by this country. It may be all right to spout revolution and blood and thunder, but you have to think of the price Russia paid for it, the oceans of blood they waded through and the disease and the poverty that are in Russia still. I agree with the hon. Member in one point. You cannot create an oasis of Socialism in the world-wide desert of private enterprise. I do not quarrel with him there. I only quarrel with his method of bringing it about. We have had two speeches in two different veins of thought. We have Socialism as we want to get it on this side, and Socialism as imagined from the other side. The hon. Member who has just spoken wanted to know what really we meant by Socialism. Perhaps it would help him if I paraphrased the statement of a colleague of mine on the Front Bench, who, when the question was put to him, replied, "Socialism is all right; it is some of the Socialists who are wrong," and we have an example behind me tonight.
The hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) fears the perils of Socialism. Where has he been living? I headed a deputation 20 years ago to the father of the Minister of Health in my capacity of President of the Trade Union Congress, and we pleaded with him to consider the principle of creating an old age pension at 70 of 6s, a week, and he held up his hands in holy horror at our presumption in putting such a proposition to him.
Now there are pensions not of 6s.[...] of 10s. and 20s., not only to old at pensioners but to widows and orphans. An hon. Member opposite asked, "What is Socialism?" We may rightly ask to-day, what is Conservatism? The old-fashioned Conservatism that we once knew is gradually disappearing, owing to the pioneer work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) and his contemporaries. It is owing to the Fabian Essays and tracts. The perils of which we are afraid are the perils of so-called private enterprise. I could take. the hon. Member to Liverpool and show him a picture of the triumph of the innocents in the Walker Art Gallery. The slaughter of the innocents is going on daily in the reeking slums behind its frame created by the perils of private enterprise to-day. I will give an example of the perils of private enterprise. You say to a man, "Do you want a job?" "Yes." "Very well, I will give you a job in my workshop." You employ him and pay him enough to keep him alive while he is working. The factories are filled with boots, clothes, shirts, food and everything necessary for life. As soon as they arc filled, the artificial law of supply and demand says, "There is no demand for the commodities you have produced, and therefore you must go out of work." There are two laws of supply and demand. There is the artificial law created by the capitalist system and there is the natural law created by the demand of those who cannot afford to pay. The man who filled the factory has been paid enough to keep him alive while he was filling it and then he is told there is no demand for the commodities he has created and he gets the sack, while there is many a man without a second shirt to his back. There is no demand for food yet people are starving.
That is the peril we see and it is a peril which Socialism, as I understand it, would remove, not by wading through seas of blood but by a peaceful revolution at the ballot box. We can thus do it more quickly and with less danger and with greater satisfaction to the human race. The hon. Member for North Battersea tells us the example of Russia is one that we ought to follow. God
[...]bid! I do not want to detain the House, but I thought that it was necessary that I should make this protest, not so much because of the colossal ignorance on the part of hon. Members opposite but because of the speech we have had from the hon. Member for North Battersea. I entirely dissociate myself, as, I am sure, any sane Socialist on this side of the House will dissociate himself, from the tornado of grotesque nonsense that was urged by the hon. Member for North Battersea. Call that Socialism! If I thought that that was the kind of Socialism we were after and the way we ought to get it, I should cross the Floor of the House to-morrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over!"] I do not think so. I have spent my life in Socialism, and I say that a system which denies a man, fit, healthy and sound, work whereby he may not only live but live in comfort, work which will enable him to be an asset to the community instead of a liability as he is today—that kind of system is a greater peril than anything I know. The sooner it is removed the better. Sane Socialism desires to remove that state of things and to give every man willing to work the opportunity of doing so.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have had, I think, a most interesting and instructive afternoon. It has been interesting because we have had two very brilliant speeches from entirely different points of view. There is no better speaker in the House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), and there is no one who puts the case of the progressive Unionist party as well as the right hon. Member. He has shown us that the present Government are putting into practice collective co-operation, gradualism. He pointed out in a most interesting way that we were practising what he believed in. Our case is not against the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, but against other Members of the Socialist party who are preaching what they do not believe in. That is really our case and it has been put quite clearly this afternoon. Everybody knows that individualism has gone. It is just as mad as an abstract idea as Socialism; Socialism is an abstract
idea, and is mad. We are gradually working ourselves out of the capitalist state into the co-operative commonwealth of capital and labour. That is what the two leaders on the Front Bench believe in, and I believe that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who have complete confidence in them. But we have not confidence in the objects for which they fight in the constituencies.
I am not frightened of the peril of Socialism as practised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. I do not believe that they would wreck the country, unless they tried to carry out what most of their back bench men have promised the people in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Conservative party?"] I agree. An hon. Member says, "What about the Conservative party?" Of course, it is not what it was. No party is what it was. Life is a gradual evolution. We are getting better. An hon. Member has said that the trouble about Socialism is the bad Socialism, and that is the trouble about Capitalism. It is the bad capitalist. I do not think that we on this side of the House want to defend the bad capitalist any more than hon. Members opposite would defend the bad Socialist. I, like many other Members, have a longing desire for the world to be better; not to protect what I or any other person has got, but to make this capitalist system give even more to the people than it has done already. Everybody who studies the question realises that the great mass of the people have obtained under capitalism what they would have never obtained under any other system in the world. When hon. Members opposite talk about what capitalism is and where it started—that I cannot accept. One hon. Member asked how it started. It probably started with the monkeys putting something aside for the winter—a policy of self-preservation. It is not what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would give us which frightens us. It is the danger of Socialistic promises.
When we have to fight elections we do not hear about Gradual Socialism but about the perils and evils of capitalism. It is very distressing, after one has heard
speeches from the Front Bench opposite, to go down to the constituencies and hear people say that what they have to do is to kill capitalism. That is not what the Front Bench believe. Of course, they do not believe it. They make men and women who are not thinking very much, believe it, and that is really the danger of Socialism. You try to make people believe that the system we have now is a danger and an evil, when you, in your hearts, do not believe it. The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) has a beautiful theory, but it is based on universal understanding and universal love. I ask the hon. Member, does he think that I could get up in Soviet Russia and make a speech such as he has made in the House of Commons to-day? Universal understanding! Why, I would not be allowed to land, let alone speak.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I will undertake the safe transport of the hon. Lady to Russia, and also her safe and sound return from Russia, if she will repeat there what she says to-night.

Viscountess ASTOR: But the hon. Member would not guarantee to get me elected to the Soviet in Russia. With the principles that I hold, I should never be allowed in that country of universal understanding. People holding views with which they disagree are not allowed to speak or to be elected. It is a wonderful idea this universal understanding and brotherly love, but it does not really work. I believe in it from the bottom of my heart, but I do not believe that the Russians believe in it. I think; as St. Paul said, that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men." But we do not act up to it. We do not practise it. We have to get a little more understanding between us before we can act upon the universal brotherhood of man. This Socialism which is being practised will have to be dropped. I do not go with hon. Members on this side who do not wish to change anything. Everyone knows that they are just as much out-of-date as Members on the other side who want to change everything. The danger of this preaching is that. Socialism is made a religion. That is what I am up against. It is not a religion. It is an economic theory which most of the people who preach it do not believe in. That is
really what it is. It does make it awfully hard, this cry of "Kill capitalism" when we know we do not want to kill capitalism. Capitalism is a good thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"] What is it? That is what I want to know.

Mr. MacLAREN: Capitalism, as. generally interpreted, means a state of society in which some people exploit the labour of someone else.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member think that George Bernard Shaw is a capitalist? He has exploited his brains and made a fortune by so doing. [Interruption.] Capital to one person means one thing, arid to another person another thing, You cannot define capitalism. You are not born with capitalism. That will not work with women. We have children, and we know our children. I have sons, and if you put one in Timbuctoo, he would rule the natives and everybody else. He has the power and ability, and is what you call a capitalist.

Mr. MacLAREN: Because he has got a good start.

Viscountess ASTOR: Quite right; he has got a good start because he has had good parents.

Mr. MAXTON: I hope the Noble Lady does not intend what she implies, to condemn all the parents of everybody else.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not in the least. You cannot guarantee the children or the parents and you cannot guarantee, their stock, rich or poor,, high or low, man or woman. Those who have a higher moral sense than their neighbours and live up to it, give their children a far better start than the parents who have not this moral sense are able to give to their children. These are not so much economic questions as moral questions. But to get back to capitalism, there may be another child who is a dreamer and has to be looked after. He does not possess what the world calls capital but he may have something equally essential to the world. You cannot define capital. You never have defined it. You go to the back streets and tell men and women that capital is at the root of all our troubles. Well, stop doing it! I am not talking from the point of view of party but from the point of view of the welfare
of this country. Some say that it absolutely depends upon industry but, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh and hon. Members know that, no matter under what Government we live, unless we have co-operation between capital and labour we shall not obtain what we desire for the vast majority of the people of the country. I am interested in trying to see whether all sections of the people cannot work out a system under capitalism in which we can give an even higher rate of living to the great masses. The hon. Member for North Battersea says we cannot. What I judge countries by is the status of the women in them, and the women in what we call capitalist countries have attained a far higher standard of living than any other women in the world. That is the basis on which I judge.
How are the women and children in those capitalist countries treated, compared with the non-capitalist countries? It is perfectly true that the British Empire has something to teach the rest of the world, and it is doing it. I do not think that the women of India have anything to say against British women. They are most grateful to the English women, the American women and the other women who have gone out there to try to lift their sisters into a higher grade. All this has been done under what we are pleased to call the capitalist system. I dislike shams, whether they are in my party or in any other party. I want to fight shams. I know there are a great many about and always will be. All of us, in our hearts, have a good deal of what the world may call "sham" and we want to get rid of it. It is not right to try to divide society up into two classes, those who are to he exploited and those who are not. Hon. Members opposite are trying to do that. They would not win elections unless they[...] it. It is a very easy thing to tell people what you are going to do when you get into power.
The trouble about the capitalist system, as of any other system, is a fundamental one, and that is, the question of power. The one thing that men cannot stand is power. It is the abuse of power which causes bad capitalists. It is the abuse of power that is the ugly thing. Hon. Members opposite
ought to attack that where it is wrong and seek to put it right, but they are not doing that merely by preaching class hatred. I know what it means. I have had it hurled at my head that I belong to another class, that I am trying to exploit the workers, that Socialism is religion, and so on. The old Socialists started out with a great ideal, but, like all things, the moment a movement becomes too large and is taken up by too many people it tends to become a sordid thing.
So far from Socialism being a religion now, the Socialism which is preached in the country to-day is a sordid thing, which is raising class hatred and jealousy. What I am frightened about is not what hon. Members opposite will do when they come to power, but the effect which their preaching is having upon the people. It is that I protest against. I thank God that women have the vote. You may fool the men by telling them all these things. We know too well, and I have said it often in this House, that the evils of all society come from the evils in the human heart, and what I complain about against Communists, for instance, is that they are trying to do on an economic basis what can only he done by the preaching of our Lord being put into practice.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The noble Lady has said that it is a difficult thing to define capitalism. It is not a difficult thing to define capitalism, if you know what you are talking about. Capitalism has nothing to do with monkeys or nuts. Capitalism is a system of society which depends upon the investment of private wealth for industrial purposes. That means a system of exploiting those whom the possessors of wealth are able to employ, and re-investing the proceeds of the exploitation. The historical development of a system of that kind divides society into two classes. Whether we like it or not, whether it is ethical or not, it is an historical and scientific fact that there are two classes of society, those who, by the fructification of private possessions in a capitalistic form, become monopolists of the means of production, and those, on the other hand, who have nothing but their labour power to sell, and must always sell that under the present system at something less than its value. That is the distinction which
marks off capitalistic society from serf or slave society. It leads to two classes, which are represented under present conditions by a division of national income which allows half of that income to go to 2,250,000 income drawers, and the other half to go to 17,750,000 income drawers.
In her definition of the capitalist system the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said that her own sons and the sons of other people possess talent and ability. One would imagine that talent and ability are always rewarded in capitalism. It is not talent, but the instinct of appropriation which is rewarded under the capitalistic system. The possession of talent will not lead you very far unless you have some power, as the hon. Lady said, some class power, some privileged power over the means of producing wealth. The only possible way in which you can make profit is by exploiting the labour of the people who produce the wealth. There is only one method of wealth production, and that is by the exertion of human labour power, which includes talent, so far as it is used for productive purposes, and which includes every kind of ability. To-day, the people who are richest in society are not the people of ability; if they are people of ability they are not people who use their abilities in a productive or constructive sense at all. These are some of our objections to the present system.
To-day, we are discussing Socialism, but the discussion of Socialism does not mean only the condemnation of capitalism. We are on the defensive, and we are entitled to accept the challenge and to explain what we mean by Socialism. We have heard a great deal about Socialism to-day from the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) and the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), but what we heard from them is not Socialism, but syndicalism, Communism, anarchism, China, Timbuctoo; every part of the world; every subject on the face of the earth but Socialism. I am not prepared to admit that Socialism means what the hon. Member for North Battersea says it means. It certainly does not mean that the miners have the right to control and run the industry of mining in this country. That is not Socialism.
Socialism does not mean the letter boxes for the postman, or the bath buns for the pastry cooks. That may be Communism, but it is not. Socialism.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Mr. Cook says it is.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not know whether Mr. Cook says so or not. What he says, now is that the people of vision are the sort of people who produced the Liberal industrial report, which is about the usual place where these revolutionary-minded people get to in the long run.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that I never said, nor does any Communist say, that the coal belongs to the miners or the bath buns belong to the bakers. I said that the conditions in the mines must be settled and controlled by the miners, and the condition of the workers in industry must be settled by those who know the difficulties best, and ran control them.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I want to occupy my time in dealing with a subject in which I am very much interested, namely Socialism, and not merely in contending with the hon. Member for North Battersea. Even if we accept what he says now that is not Socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with the people of particular industries determining the exact conditions of their employment. Everything depends upon what is socially desirable and what is socially effective. It is quite conceivable that in many sections of industry it would be disastrous and highly dangerous to have that degree of anarchistic sub-division in regard to responsibility and organisation that is exemplified in what the hon. Member for North Battersea has said.
When the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) was referring to communal activities, as shown in public enterprise, municipal enterprise, the Post Office service, and so on, he was not explaining Socialism. He did not pretend to be explaining Socialism, and for the hon. Member for North Battersea to say that be was putting that forward as Socialism is entirely to misrepresent the position. Obviously, the Post Office under a capitalist State, run on capitalistic lines, financially and otherwise, cannot possibly be Socialism.
The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh does not say it is Socialism. He says that it is an illustration of the inevitable tendencies of capitalism towards collectivist construction, and what is shown in public enterprise and in municipal enterprise is shown also in capitalism itself. The old idea of individualism, of a decentralised individual control in industry, has practically broken down, and to-day we see not only national trustification, but international trustification. The Socialist movement predicted that many years ago. What we stated then was that a new system of society, inevitably, must be born out of the new conditions which capitalism itself brings about. Those conditions have been brought about.
We cannot go back to the old individualistic conceptions. We have to go forward on a more scientific organisation of society, nationally and internationally. Capitalism to-day is seeking to socialise itself for its own benefit and the benefit of the capitalistic class; but it will not succeed in doing that, for the simple reason that so long as you have a capitalistic society, you cannot possibly pay in the form of wages under your capitalistic system of society enough to enable the people to buy back what they are capable of producing. Because of that fact you can never take advantage of the full development of scientific power for industry and natural resources. That is where Socialism becomes inevitable. Socialism does not mean putting the present system into a Government strait jacket. So far as the transition from capitalism into Socialism is concerned—the hon. Member for North Battersea will not agree with me here, because he is a revolutionist, and I do not believe in revolution; I believe in evolution—it is an evolutionary development, and with that evolutionary development you will obviously get many forms of collectivist development, according to the circumstances and conditions of separate industries.
Nationalisation is not Socialism, but a constructive step towards Socialism. Obviously, nationalisation can only efficiently be applied to those industries which are national in their character. It would be folly to talk about nationalising the milk supply or the local tram service. It would be folly, because it
would be much more efficient to manage those things upon local lines. You have another form of constructive collectivist development in the local authority running social and industrial services of one kind and another.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is it not stated in the Labour agricultural policy that the milk supply is now ripe for nationalisation?

Mr. MONTAGUE: That question is perfectly reasonable, but I do not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me. When I was speaking of the milk supply, I was referring particularly to its retail distribution. Certainly there is, from the agricultural point of view, necessity for a national policy and for national organisation in regard to the milk supply, and that is part of the Labour programme. There are other forms of industry which would not be so efficiently managed upon nationalised or even upon municipalised lines. You have, for instance, the great co-operative societies. Those co-operative societies are as much capitalism as nationalisation is capitalism. They are simply a development of joint stock company enterprise, and they cannot be anything else so long as we have a financial structure which we call capitalism; but the value of the co-operative movement is that you have in that movement an organisation and a structure which can most easily and efficiently be turned over into the complete Socialist form of control that we desire in the ideals that we are striving for. In the co-operative movement you have a larger amount of autonomy. In that movement you are right away from State control, and from what is called bureaucracy—there is a lot of nonsense talked about bureaucracy—and you are right away from the local administration which is represented by trams and the rest of municipal services. You have more autonomy, more local and decentralised control. That is another illustration of what would happen under Socialism. It is not a cast-iron system.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion spoke of guild Socialism, and wanted to know whether we stood for guild Socialism or some other kind of Socialism. He does not understand the philosophy of Socialism at all or he would not ask that question. Whether there will be guild Socialism in any form
of industry will depend entirely upon the common sense of the people. But we are not concerned about that. What we are concerned about is that to-day society does allow poverty which is unnecessary among the vast bulk of the people, and if you organised your production scientifically and upon effective lines you would abolish poverty completely. You can organise the labour of the people and the sources of production in such a way as to produce all that any reasonable person can enjoy, without enslaving any other people.

Viscountess ASTOR: Do you think, if you could abolish poverty, that you would also abolish sickness and immorality?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am afraid I have already taken up more time than I ought in answering various interruptions. The hon. Member asks whether it would abolish immorality and sickness. That again shows the unscientific way of looking at the subject. I am not concerned with bringing Socialism about; what I am concerned with is an easy transition for what I regard as inevitable. Make no mistake about it, Socialism, whether you like it or not, is coming, and so far as immorality and sickness are concerned, the greater part is the result of the capitalist system.

Viscountess ASTOR: Rich people are sick and immoral.

An HON. MEMBER: Indigestion!

Mr. MONTAGUE: The sickness of rich people is very often the result of their intemperance, and I do not use the word "intemperance" as being confined to alcoholic stimulants. But that is not the point. If you want to understand Socialism surely it is desirable to find out the historical basis of Socialism. We look back—it may be academic but it is very necessary—into the evolution of society. The capitalist system came into existence as the perfect and natural development of the evolution of society, and capitalism will transform itself into Socialism by similar natural and evolutionary processes. These processes are going on under capitalism itself to-day. The transformation will consist in this, to take the collectivist structure of capitalist society, which is becoming more and more collectivist as time goes on, and get into it the principle of democracy,
government by the people, for the people, as much in our industrial as in our political life.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I do not want to intervene for more than a brief interval. I was disappointed with the speech to which we have just listened, because the hon. Member promised that he would give us a definition of Socialism, and he never did except to a certain extent by implication. I ask him to interrupt me if I misstate his views on this subject, when I say I gather from him he believes that Socialism is the belief that the material position of the bulk of the people would be better if the capitalist resources of industry were controlled democratically instead of as they are at present. If that is not the case, perhaps he will interrupt me.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Not to contradict the hon. Member so much as to say that the term "capitalist resources" is rather ambiguous. I prefer to say that I believe in the "democratic ownership of the means of production." Then I know what I am talking about.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I used the expression "capital resources," because I thought it was plainer than "means of production." "Means of production "involves some very nebulous factors in-deed. For instance, it involves certain qualities and details of character. in the people concerned. In a Debate of this sort, we,arc not entitled to go into metaphysics,.and we shall do well to confine ourselves to the consideration of material capital resources, that is, all those means of production which are material things and which can be weighed and measured. The hon. Member put forward the view that the prosperity of the people would be greater if the control of these capital resources were decided democratically. Those who call themselves individualists take the contrary view. We believe that the material welfare of the people is best secured by leaving the control of the capital resources in the hands of those who make income into capital. Let me explain myself in this way. Some of us have certain qualities: they may not be very high qualities, but they are undoubtedly very useful qualities in a civilised community. We have the quality that we can make profits, and we have the further quality that we have a natural
tendency to look forward to to-morrow's supply of the good things of life before we decide what is to be the standard of our living to-day. Capitalists have that temperament; that is the temperament of the man who sets aside the seed corn for next year's sowing before deciding what is to be eaten during the current year.
Unhappily, as things are constituted at present, that particular quality is comparatively rare. We know as a matter of experience, although it will not be so in the fuutre, that the bulk of the people, even in a nation with so old a civilisation as ours, are far more inclined to look after to-day's standard of living than to think of what is going to be the standard of living a year or even 10 years hence. Therefore, I claim that we who have capital are useful to our fellow-citizens in the present constitution of society.
So far as democratic ownership of capital resources is concerned I agree with hon. Members opposite to this extent, that I do not think it matters two-pence who call themselves the owners of capital. What really matters is who controls capital. Let me say, if the House will forgive a personal allusion, that in my own case I have introduced democratic ownership of capital, but I preserve most carefully the autocratic control of capital myself, and for this reason, that those who I employ are, in the main, people who have not got the capitalist temperament and, therefore, if they had the ultimate decision as to what proportion of the joint product of our labours was to be given out in raising the standard of living and what proportion was to be reserved as the basis of an improved standard of living next year, or 10 years hence, they admit to me that on a popular democratic vote they are much afraid that the proportion given out to raise to-day's standard of living might, unfortunately, be such as to risk the standard of living to-morrow or next year.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I point out that the amount that is set aside is £250,000,000 a year out of a total national income of £4,000,000,000? Is not there something left over to give a decent standard of life to the people who work?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The fact is this, that owing to the action of successive
Governments of all parties during the last generation the amount of fresh capital available is distinctly reduced, and I only hope the return of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to the Treasury will at any rate remedy this. I myself, having no dependants, and, being therefore, a free agent, was perfectly willing to introduce democratic control; but those whom I employ, and who would be the democratic controllers of capital in my own business, are very averse from my taking any such step, because they know perfectly well that although at first the democratic vote would be exercised wisely, yet sooner or later somebody would come along and say, "Here you are, year by year putting by to meet a rainy day which may never come. Would it not be much nicer to have a really good time now and trust to luck for the future?" What I say is this, that so long as the capitalist temperament is the temperament of the minority and not the majority in our country, so long is it the absolute bounden duty of us who have that temperament to prevent by every means in our power the control of capital being placed in the hands of the majority.

Mr. J. JONES: I am going to carry out a promise, Sir, which you gave me an opportunity of making, and I will try to be as brief as possible. I have been a member of the Socialist movement since I was a boy of 17, and I have been very interested at the speeches which have been made in support of the Motion this afternoon. The hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) has evidently spent a great deal of time reading some of the open-air speeches delivered by supporters of the Tory party in recent elections. Instead of getting an argument against Socialism we got a re-hash of all the things Socialists are supposed to have said and written during the last 50 years. It may be interesting to go to the British Museum picking out antiquities, but when you come to the House of Commons to discuss a Motion of this character you ought to get something more than that from Members who are supposed to represent intellectual constituencies in the West End of London. It would not matter so much down my way, because we are not supposed to be clever enough to do anything except work for the hon.
Member opposite. As he was born with a superior amount of knowledge and ability, being careful in the choice of his parents, capitalism is all right.
We are not talking about handing over the industries of the country to men employed by particular employers. Socialism does not suggest that the industries of the nation shall be worked in watertight compartments. The main principle is socialism in economics, that is, that the wealth of the nation should be recognised to be the property of the people of the nation and that as far as organisation and control is concerned it shall be democratically recognised that all the people have an equal right to share not merely in the political government of the nation but also in its economic relationships. There has been a complete travesty of the case this afternoon. Nobody doubts the good-heartedness of hon. Members opposite. We know their hearts are bigger than ours, because their purses are larger. They can afford to be kind to everyone; we can afford to be kind only to a few. But that is not the way to solve social problems. Ruskin said that conscience money is the money which the rich man pays for the robbery of the poor. I say to hon. Members opposite, "It is time that you ceased giving charity and gave us justice. Then you can keep the charity for yourselves, for you will want it."
What is the situation to-day? I cannot make a speech like that of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). He has covered the whole of the economic ground. The big fish have eaten up the little fish and the little fish are eating mud now. Why are we Members of this House being continually asked to. assist some bodies of capitalists who are in distress? They are coming every day and asking Parliament to safeguard them. Against whom? Against themselves. They are all robbing each other as best they can. It is an international game of "Beggar my neighbour," the capitalists of Germany trying to "do" the capitalists of England, and vice versa. And Parliament is being asked to safeguard them. The only people who cannot be protected in Great Britain to-day are the workers. They can go on as they are. The miners can remain in their juice, and every
other section of the working classes, if it has not sufficient political power, can be left out in the cold. Hon. Members opposite say, "Capitalism is good enough for us. We hope it will last our time. Let us have peace in industry in our time, O Lord!"
They will never have peace in industry under capitalism. They cannot have it, because they are perpetually reproducing a poverty problem greater than
before. What is the problem to-day? How to get rid of the goods that we produce. People who were our customers have now become our competitors to a large extent; people who used to buy goods from us now produce those goods for themselves: All the tariff barriers and all the safeguarding will not make any difference, even to the extent of a jingle on a tombstone. Who makes the work and who takes it? We know who makes it, and who takes it. The people who talk about their capacity in industry, are they the people who control industry? To-day industry is controlled largely—as to 75 per cent.—by financiers, who know as much about industry as a Connemara pig does about astronomy. The real control of industry is in the hands of the great financiers. The "Big Five," the great banks, have more to do with industry than any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They control the financial arrangements; they lay down the conditions under which industry shall be conducted. Then hon. Members come and talk about the brain power of the Lord Tom Noddies and others. It makes me sick to hear about the brain power of these people. Some of us here are only common or garden people. We are not here because of the fullness of our purses. We have reached here because we have some brains.
Hon. Members talk about the Empire and all its grandeur. The Mover of the Motion talked of the Empire disappearing. We do not want to see it disappear; we want to see it really happier. You cannot call it a great Empire of which we ought to be proud when hundreds of' millions of its population are living under conditions that are a disgrace to civilisation. People in Egypt and in India, are living lives that human beings ought not to live. I ask hon. Members opposite, What are you doing now? You great patriots are using the cheap and degraded labour of India and Egypt to degrade the
condition of our own workers in this country. Capitalism is digging its own grave by its own economic evolution and development. In the language of one of our great leaders, we are not out to control men in the interests of kings; we are out to control kings in the interests of men. That is what we want to do—to control the material means of existence so that we may break down the barrier of economic poverty. It is not merely economic poverty; it is the mental and spiritual poverty of our people that has to be broken down.
The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has told us not to preach the class war. We have never preached the class war. The class war is a historic fact. Read the history of any great country. What has always been the trouble? The poverty of the great mass of the people as against the wealth of a small class of the people. It is the eternal struggle. For the first time in the history of the world, a conscious effort is now being made to alter that state of things. To-day the workers have some education and they have some little power. They have the vote. Capital has always given something to save a lot. Whenever the workers become discontented and made their power felt, the capitalists said, "What can we give them to keep them quiet?" It is all very-clever; the British governing classes are the cleverest in the world.

Mr. MAXTON: Not just now.

Mr. JONES: Not the present Government. The governing classes in this country in the past were the cleverest in the world, because they always knew how long to maintain resistance and know the psychological moment at which to give a bit. That is the history of British politics. To-day new issues are coming to the front. We have got accustomed to "One man, one vote." To-day the cry is, "One man one dinner, and every man a dinner and no man two dinners until every man has had one." It is an economic problem. We want a fair deal and a square deal for the workers, and in our opinion that can be got only under Socialism. We are fighting the battle every time we get a chance. At every election the issue will be placed before the people. I am pleased that this
Motion has been moved to-day. We are not afraid or ashamed of our Socialism. We know well that in fullness of time victory is on our side, because the economic factors are working in our direction.

7.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): It has already been said that this Debate has been interesting. In one respect, however, the Debate seems to have been disappointing. We have not had any authoritative exposition of what Socialism really means in practice. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) described himself as an evolutionist and not a revolutionist. The evolutionists have been given prominence this afternoon as the exponents of Socialism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has gifts of exposition and of moderation behind which Socialism will no doubt be preached in the constituencies, but with a very different tone and very different tendency. Perhaps we should not be surprised that one whom I may describe as a Socialist with the courage of his convictions, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), was not selected to explain what Socialism really means. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a Socialist!"] I have described him, I think fairly, as a Socialist with the courage of his convictions. But if we do not understand on this side what Socialism really means in practice, it can hardly he said that it is the fault of hon. Members who have moved this Motion, but is the fault of hon. Members opposite who fail in Debate after Debate to put into practical terms what Socialism will mean in application.
The Amendment which has been moved is the most curiously half-hearted presentation of Socialism that the House has ever seen. If I understand aright, the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh asked the House to affirm this proposition: "Whatever you may say of Socialism, trusts and syndicates are bad, and Socialism can hardly be any worse, and so you need not be afraid of it.'' If the Amendment does not mean that. I do not know what it does mean. It says that:
In view of the widespread change in industry in the direction of syndicate, combine and trust, side by side with material insecurity affecting large numbers of the
people, there is no foundation for the fear of an economic system based upon the principles of public ownership and control.
I should have thought that an economic system based upon the principles of public ownership would have been advocated by hon. Members opposite, whether syndicates or trusts were in sight or not, but the political faith of hon. Members opposite appears to depend on the fact that syndicates and trusts are now becoming a permanent feature of our economic system. Then the Amendment refers to the fact that large numbers of our population have to face what is described as material insecurity. I did hope to hear an exposition from the benches opposite of the way in which the application of Socialism would have increased the security of these great numbers of our population. Material insecurity, if that means the condition of things to which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr.J.Jones) referred, is the result not of this system or of that system of government, but of the lack of employment, which depends upon the amount of orders which this country can receive from someone. If hon. Members opposite would explain why a civil servant is a better commercial traveller than someone who is in industry for what he can get out of it, then we should perhaps have some reason for believing that the material condition of the people would be improved by the application of the Socialist principle.
What is wanted, as everyone knows, whether Socialist or individualist, is an increase in the industrial prosperity of this country, and not merely for its own sake a change in the economic system. If the change in the economic system will increase trade, then no doubt the material prosperity of the people of this country will increase, but until hon. Members opposite have made an effort to show that the application of Socialism will increase the orders that come to this country, both from within our own shores and from other parts of the world, they have not moved a single step towards the establishment of the proposition that poverty will be any the less when Socialism has become a principle of our system. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh said that he had waited in vain for a definition of Socialism from the hon. Gentleman who moved the
Motion. I also waited for a definition of Socialism when the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh rose to speak. I thought that at any rate, as he is more acquainted with Socialism, he would have been able to tell us something which my hon. Friend who moved the Motion was not qualified to tell us. "Socialism," said the right hon. Gentleman, "is not something that you can be afraid of, or that you can describe as a peril until you have defined it." I might retort to the right hon. Gentleman that Socialism is not a blessing that you can praise until you can define it. Yet. hon. Members opposite are always holding up Socialism to us as being the Mecca of our hopes without. being able to tell us where it is, how it. is built, or what happens when its principles are applied.

Mr. MAXTON: Can you tell us that about Conservatism?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, when we have a Debate on Conservatism. and, before I have finished, I shall tell you a little about what Conservatism has to say in regard to public control and individual enterprise. Another remarkable feature about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he had so little to say about public ownership. He will find that at the end of his speech he said that, although public ownership was, of course, important, he preferred to say nothing about it in this Debate and proposed to confine himself to a discussion on public control.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: indicated dissent.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. At. any rate, I am right in this, that almost the whole of his speech was taken up by a discussion of the advantages of public control and very little with public ownership. He still shakes his head. Those who were in the House will confirm what I said. He did not tell us anything about the extent to which public ownership is to be put into practice. He did not tell us anything about the terms of acquisition which will alone enable public ownership to be applied, or about the disposition or the enjoyment of some forms of property which, I suppose, will be nationalised. He did not say a word about the class of person who will enjoy the occupation of the
land that has been acquired and which will be the subject of public ownership, and not a word as to the conditions upon which people will be allowed to enjoy the occupation of the land.

Mr. MAXTON: It was not our Motion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It was not your Motion, but it was your Amendment. What we had at least expected to hear was an exposition of the reasons for telling us that
There is no foundation for the fear of an economic system based upon the principles of public ownership and control.
We expected, at least, to hear, what public ownership means, and when it is going to be put into force.

Mr. W. THORNE: All in the course of one afternoon?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: At any rate, in the course of one speech. This House and all political parties have been waiting ever since the General Election to hear the Labour party pin themselves down to some policy. Sometimes we are told public ownership is going to be brought about by a policy of confiscation, and I believe the hon. Member on the back benches rather favours that view of the problem.

Mr. MAXTON: My views are the same as Churchill's.

The SOLICITOR "GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke this afternoon is, I believe, in practical disagreement with the hon. Member behind him. It really is astonishing that, in a discussion on the blessings which may follow from the adoption of the system of public ownership, it is impossible to understand the conditions on which public ownership will be brought about. If you confiscate the property of the nation I can quite understand making a large profit out of its use, but if you pay fair terms for it to the existing owners the problem is a different one. As the right hon. Gentleman has not been good enough to tell us about his idea of the terms of acquisition, then I am afraid we shall not be able to get down to the rock-bottom of the argument as to whether the system is advantageous or not. Perhaps in his next effort he will be able to give us some
illumination on this question. Perhaps I can assume that what is generally said about public ownership represents the views of the Socialist party, namely, that when you have industry in the possession of the nation, when you have what is called public ownership, you have a sense of service and a prevention of the exploitation of individuals which is alone possible under that system. I am not at all sure that hon. Members can point to an instance where that has been found to be true in practice, but I do not propose to go into such illustrations as we have had of Socialism in practical working. Most hon. Members are familiar with the experiments that were tried both within and without the Empire. I prefer merely to mention one or two reasons for thinking public ownership will not work in practice. How would Parliament grapple with the question of the control. not of the industries but of the officials who control the industries? We are accustomed to lament the inadequacy of the time and effort expended on the finances of this country under a capitalist system. How is this House going to find the time and opportunity to examine the. accounts of the officials who run the publicly-owned industries of this country? Are we going to relegate the control of these industries to officials or committees of officials? Is that their idea of public ownership? I hear hon. Members opposite say, "Very nice," but do they tell us what the alternative is?
Apart from the difficulties of the management of these industries, who is going to enjoy what I may call the spoils of ownership.? [Interruption.] When hon. Members opposite have done licking. their lips I will proceed with the discussion of the destination of the spoils of ownership. There will be two classes of people in the country. There will be those who are engaged in the administration or practical operation of these industries, and there will be those who are not. I do not suppose that even the Socialists imagine that from infancy to old age every person for every hour of his life is to be engaged in a public Department at a wage or salary. I do not attempt such a ridiculous conception of the Socialist mentality as that. There will be two classes, one class employed in the industry by the Government and
another class that is not employed. We know perfectly well that the efforts of the people who are employed in the industry will be continuously directed to the improvement of their own lot within the industry, that attempt after attempt will be made for the advance of the emoluments which they enjoy from the State. There will be exactly the same manifestation of individual and group selfishness in these industries under conditions of public ownership as we have now. The hon. Members opposite have not yet shown that you are going to have any less selfishness under public ownership than you have at the present time. Let me give an illustration that has come to my notice within the last 24 hours. I am sorry not to see the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) here. This is a family affair, for the gentleman bears the same name and is, I suppose, a member of the family. This gentleman has recently resigned his membership of the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers and joined another less political union in the same industry, and his reasons are most illuminating:
Events have proved that the theory of a common standard of economic well-being for postal workers does not function in practice, the interplay of grades is too strong a force to be subjugated to an ideal. The final analysis of any problem reveals that grade interests are the predominant factors.
So anybody knew who cared to make an examination of the prospects of this system. We know perfectly well that in every one of those State-owned industries the workers would regard themselves as the persons primarily entitled to enjoy a substantial part of the fruits of those industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Naturally"] Naturally, but what about the people who are supposed to enjoy the rest of the fruits? You cannot speak about a popularly-owned industry and then regard it as the peculiar possession of the people who are employed in it. Everybody who has given a moment's thought to it is perfectly well aware that there will be manifestations of the same selfishness and competition within the industry as under the present system.

Mr. W, THORNE: Rubbish!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member says "Rubbish!" I say everybody who has given a moment's thought to it.

Mr. THORNE: Everyone on this side of the House knows the cause of selfishness.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) was quite right when she said that selfishness is not a monopoly of capitalism.

Mr. THORNE: It is only a matter of degree.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is another disadvantage connected with the suggestion which hon. Members opposite advocate, which is familiar even to those who are concerned with the administration of some of our State-owned public services to-day. The creation of a vast electorate in the public service is quite certain to have its reactions in political life. You cannot have a very large proportion of the nation engaged in these industries without expecting to bring pressure to bear upon the Government of the day. There is one thing from which in this country we have been secure, and that has been any improper influence, any log-rolling influences in political matters. [Interruption.] I am speaking of the Government I know best. Hon. Members speak of another Government.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That remark certainly carries a very vile imputation. Will the hon. and learned Member make it clear that no such imputation is meant?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I made no insinuation against his Government, until hon. Members behind him suggested, by their interruptions, that our Government was corrupt. Really, the right hon. Gentleman must not complain when I defend myself and my friends. He knows perfectly well that I have not made any suggestion of corruption against him or his friends. If hon, Members opposite would control themselves the right hon. Gentleman would not find room for interjections. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh devoted himself very largely to a discussion of the advantages of public control and I wish to
say a word upon that subject. Public control associated with public ownership is one thing. Public control dissociated from public ownership is another thing. The illustrations which the right hon. Gentleman gave were illustrations of public control not connected with public ownership. He instanced the case of the Railways Act of 1921. I should have thought that that was an illustration of public control in perfect consistency with Conservative principles, and not an illustration of public ownership, which is a Socialist doctrine. Similarly with the Electricity Bill of two Sessions ago. That was not an example of Socialism, but was a barrier against Socialism.
So thin did the material grow which the right hon. Gentleman had at his disposal for illustrating the advantages of public control that his third instance was that of broadcasting. Does he suggest that that is an industry, or a fair sample of the application of public control to our industrial system? At the best, it can be described as a public service—a sheltered industry. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the discussion of these illustrations of public control dissociated from public ownership are really not relevant, that public, control is only important in Socialism when it is connected with what is called public ownership. Let me try to make plain the position of hon. Members of the Conservative party in this connection. We believe in public control when there are dangers which threaten the State. An illustration of the application of the public control in which we believe is the Trade Unions Act which we passed recently. Hon. Members opposite will not find us reluctant to control anything, if it is in the interests of the State to do so. Nobody who is acquainted with the social legislation of this generation can say that the Conservative party have not been prepared to use their powers of control, whenever any influence or any group of persons has sought to interfere with the proper freedom of the individual.
The Factory Acts which this country has passed are exercises of the power of public control in relation to individuals; and there is all the difference in the world between such public control as
that of which I have been speaking, and the public control in the minds of hon. Members opposite associated with public ownership. The fact is that the public control of which we are thinking and which we practise is the balanced adjustment of the conflicting claims of different members and portions of the community. You must predicate a certain power of public control in the State if you are to prevent a condition of things which might eventually burst into civil war in our own country. In public control we do believe, and if I may refer to the Liberal party and its history I believe I am right in saying that at one time at any rate, they believed in the naked and unfettered exploitation of humanity in industry. I am glad to think they have long departed from that position. They now believe in public control in relation to industry, and in the protection of individuals and communities. We neither believe in the unfettered exploitation of humanity nor in the suppression of the natural aspirations which colour and give zest. to life. Hon. Members opposite, on the other hand, do stand for that suppression. They stand for an inhibition upon the use of the powers and the talents which have been implanted in man for his own advancement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members dispute that proposition, they know perfectly well that the truth of it depends upon what I ventured to deal with at. the beginning of my speech, namely, the extent to which they are going to put public ownership into operation.
If hon. Members opposite tell me they are not going to extend public ownership beyond the control of municipal services and that sort of thing, then nobody has suggested that that would be a peril to the State, and they should recognise that Conservatives would apply it just as readily and gladly as they would. But the public ownership of which they are always speaking is the public ownership discussed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley in a memorable Debate two or three Sessions ago—public ownership of all our industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer it. If they advocate public ownership of all our industries, let them say so. If they do not advocate public ownership of all our industries,
equally let them say so. Until we have had an explanation from them of what they understand by their own policy, we Prefer, as Conservatives, to maintain that middle position which has been characteristic of the party during a generation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite ended his speech with a challenge to us to submit in due time this question to the electorate and expressed himself as confident of the decision which would be given by the people of this country upon it. I accept the challenge; and I am confident that if the proposal of hon. Members opposite is to suppress the traditional British spirit of adventure, and to substitute for it State ownership of all our industries, then that proposal would mean the end of the supremacy of the Imperial race and the destruction of that great position which has been won by the enterprise and spirit of adventure to which I have referred.

Mr. MAXTON: This Debate I understood was to expose the great divisions which existed in the ranks of the Socialist party, and, incidentally, to show the peril that would come to the State if the people returned a Socialist Government to power and if that Government put Socialist principles into operation in the public affairs of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken was the most entertaining of the speakers. He put some "punch" into it. He showed some "vim" and some feeling, and, frankly, I have not much use for a Debate that has not a fair amount of personal feeling behind it. But I wish to point out that while the Opposition have a duty to criticise the existing Government, and to lay down the alternative principles upon which they would operate, the Government who are managing the affairs of the country have to produce the goods. The hon. and learned Gentleman however stood at the Box, making that speech, as if everything in this country outside the House of Commons was in perfect order. He did not say so, but that was the implication; and other right hon. Gentlemen, day after day, stand up there and suggest, because they can point to this little weakness in Socialist theory, or that failure to apply Socialist theory
to some fantastic future situation which they visualise for themselves, that therefore they have done their whole duty to this country, while there are over 1,000,000 people unemployed. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many are employed?"] It is surely the function of the State to use all the available service of the people who are willing to serve. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their Friends have found the capitalist system incapable of employing the services of the, people who are willing to work, and also incapable of supplying the needs of daily life to many people. But an hon. Member opposite is satisfied because a fraction of the people are employed. It seems to be suggested that this fact shows a marvellously high percentage of success for capitalism.
I do not think hon. Members opposite have shown any serious divisions of opinion among the spokesmen on this side of the House. I know exactly what are the differences between myself and certain right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. There is no difference in this respect however. Every one of us agrees that the basis of a decent social system consists of the public ownership of land, of transport, of finance, of coal and power—those four basic things which enter into every industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is left?"] I will tell hon. Members. There is not much left out of which you can make money without working We say these four things ought to be publicly owned and controlled for the benefit of all the people of this country, and that implies this other element in Socialism which has not been dealt with by many of my hon. Friends on this side—that there will have to be a narrowing of that tremendous gulf which separates the unemployed man or the unemployed girl, valued by hon. Members opposite at 8s. a week, from the Super-tax payer whom they value at several hundreds of pounds per week. Socialism includes that in its general conception. That gulf will have to be narrowed to vanishing point, and finally will have to go altogether. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) tries to suggest that the material differences existing between one end of the social scale and the other are due to moral differences. Rubbish! Utter rubbish!

Viscountess ASTOR: No, no. That is not quite fair.

Mr. MAXTON: I definitely questioned the Noble Lady when she made the remark, and she pointed out that the success of her children was due to the high moral character of their parents. She suggested that the girl in poverty in the, slum was there because of inferior capacity or inferior morale. It is not true.

Sir H. BRITTAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the. Question."

The House divided:Ayes, 228; Noes, 107.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (wood Green)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Loder, J. de V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
England, Colonel A.
Long, Major Eric


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset.Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, Lewis


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Everard.W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


 Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Astor, Viscountess
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catncart)


Atkinson, C.
Fenby, T. D.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maclntyre, Ian


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.


 Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, captain H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macqulsten, F. A.


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacRobert. Alexander M.


Berry, Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bethel, A.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


 Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.


Blundell. F. N.
Cower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grant, sir J. A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brass, Captain W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oakley, T.


Brewn, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George
Owen, Major G.


Burman, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pennefather, Sir John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Penny, Frederick George


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Caine, Gordon Hall
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Carver, Major W. H.
Harney, E. A.
Pilcher, G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston spencer
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rice, Sir Frederick


Clayton, G. C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major Sir G. H. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Conway, Sir W Martin
Hills, Major John Waller
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Cope, Major William
Hilton. Cecil
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, Capt A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Sanders. Sir Robert A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shelfield, Sir Berkeley


Crookshank, Cpt H.(Llndsey,Galnsbro)
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cunliffe. Sir Herbert
Hunt, Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Dalkeith. Earl of
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Junes, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davles, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Lamb. J. Q.
Strauss, E. A.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Stuart, Crichlon-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Tasker, R. Inlgo.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thompson, Luke (Sutherland)
Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Tinne, J. A.
Wiggins, William Martin
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wragg, Herbert


Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)



Waddington, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace. Captain D. E.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Sir Harry Brittain and Captain Reid


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil
Riley, Ben


Baker, j. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmoutn, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W,H.,Eliand)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr. J.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Mac Donald, Rt, Hon.J, R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnlco, H.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. p.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Welsh. J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianetly)


Greenall. T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Patin, John Henry



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley 


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. HARDIE rose——

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock. the, Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRY.

Captain STREATFEILD: I beg to move,
That this House warmly endorses the policy of safeguarding industries and, in view of its proved success, urges the necessity for the widest extension of this policy, consistent with the Prime Minister's pledges, as the only political means of accelerating the advent of prosperity, of maintaining the standard of living of the wage-earners and reducing unemployment, and of promoting national economy.
I am afraid that the subject now under discussion is one of which we have heard

a good deal quite lately. I think I am right in saying that this is the fourth or fifth occasion on which we have talked of the principle of safeguarding since the House met six weeks ago, and in that connection I sincerely hope that the significance of the frequency with which the subject has been raised will not be lost on my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and that they will regard it as indicative of the feeling of this House on this subject. We started this year with a great deal more justification for hope for the trade of this country than for a good many years past. In 1927 we have turned a debit of £7,000,000 into a credit turnover of no less than £103,000,000, and I think that is an achievement of which the Government can justly be proud and upon which we, their supporters, can
congratulate them, and some commendation, I think, might also come from hon. Members opposite. But although we have an improvement, we cannot ignore the fact that that improvement is not universal and is not spread out evenly throughout the industries of this country. There are far too many which are still in a bad state, particularly the large staple industries.

The improvement is no justification for letting well alone, for merely sitting down to see what further improvements may develop. I believe that that improvement can be very much accelerated, and there is no shadow of doubt about the importance of it being accelerated. There is no need for me at this stage to dwell upon the vast changes that have taken place in the economic situation during the last 25 or 30 years, Hon. Members are all very well acquainted with them and are perfectly well aware how the European War has altered that economic situation throughout the world, just as it altered the map of Europe. Foreign countries which used to come to us to carry out large engineering contracts and which used to import large quantities of goods of all kinds are now doing these things for themselves, but what is of infinitely more importance, is that they are now doing these things for us as well. With a population very densely concentrated of some 45,000,000, this country forms a very large and convenient market for the industrial universe, and it is an expanding market, too. Our imports in 1923 amounted to £230,000,000, and in 1927 to £297,000,000.

What does it all come to? It means that from being the workshop of the world and infinitely the largest supplier throughout the world, we have descended to the humiliating position of being the dumping ground of the industrial universe—[Laughter]—Hon. Members may laugh, but it only shows that they seldom realise how serious the situation is. While we in this country are peacefully slumbering, and while some of us, especially at a late sitting, are snoring as well, behind the lowest tariff walls in Europe, the foreigner calmly steps over those walls and takes our markets. it, is far from my desire to approach this question with any animosity towards the foreigner. Nobody wants to look at it like that. We regard the foreigner in
the same way as a firm regards a trading rival, and we do not ask for the prohibition of his goods; we only ask for fair and equitable conditions. In this country we keep up our own markets by an expenditure of our own money, obtained by rates and taxes and so on, and yet the foreign manufacturer can come into this country and use those markets free, gratis and for nothing. No amount of cerebral activity can possibly call that fair and equitable.

What is the problem that confronts those who are interesting themselves in industrial matters to-day? We have to find same means of work for our own people, to pay wages to our own people, and we have also to find means of keeping our own profits for ourselves and, from those profits, of helping to swell our own exchequer. We have to set to, work to recapture the markets which are. ours by every moral and economic right. That is the problem, and it might be considered really comic and humorous if it were not so terribly true and real and tragic. Hon. Members opposite below the Gangway will agree that free trade has its merits; it would have its merits if it were universal, but so long as the foreign manufacturer is protected, so long as his workers arc content with a low standard of living, and to work longer hours for lower wages, and so long as foreign governments grant subsidies and the rates of exchange in foreign countries are below ours, it is folly in the extreme to labour under any ideas of free trade. It is unfair to the manufacturers and workers of this country, who are putting up such a splendid fight against economic odds.

In 1927 we imported into this country £297,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. A vast proportion of these goods were such that we could perfectly well make ourselves, and not only make ourselves, but, I suggest, make them a good deal better. What is the wages side of that question? At a low estimate, the purchase of these goods meant wages going abroad to the tune of some £130,000,000. What would that. mean to the unemployed? In one year it would mean employment for 900,000 people at a wage of £3 a. week, and I fail to see how, under the circumstances, hon. Members opposite can justify this export of wages. I notice that the Amendment from the hon. Members opposite talks about robbery;
if that be not robbery, I should like to know what it is. One often hears that tariffs mean unemployment. That, I suggest, has no foundation in fact. If hon. Members opposite say that it is true, how do they account for the fact that, since the termination of the coal stoppage, 600,000 men have been absorbed in industry and that, since the beginning of this year, the number taken on in industry is no less than 254,000?

Another aspect of the question is the establishment by foreign firms of factories in this country. Since we had our system of safeguarding, there have been five motor factories established, seven factories for manufacturing motor tyres, and one for artificial silk, while in artificial silk British factories that have been established, or are in course of being established, number something like a dozen. Think of the employment that that means! Think of the thousands that are getting work, and are being put into stable employment, who otherwise would never have got it at all. I really cannot believe that hon. Members opposite, both above and below the Gangway, mean by repealing the safeguarding Measures, to deprive the people of the work that is their right.

I should like to touch shortly on the granite industry, and to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. H. Williams) to this matter. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are two places where granite quarrying is carried on on an extensive scale—Creetown and Dalbeattie—and the unemployment there is worse than anywhere else in the constituency. We have to deal with granite curbs and setts and monumental stone, in regard to which the trade has been almost entirely taken by Scandinavia. I want to urge upon the hon. Gentleman that if any help is sought to be given to the granite industry by the imposition of duty on imported monumental stone, the help will be very little. I would urge that, if the monumental granite industry is to be helped, marble must come under the duty as well. I am inclined to believe that hon. Members opposite are beginning to think that there may be something behind the principle of the safeguarding of industries. I have here a report of the 59th annual Trade Union Congress held at Edinburgh last year, and there are one or two things in
it which are certainly interesting. Mr. W. H. Smith, of the Boot and Shoe Operatives, moved the following resolution:
That this Congress, recognising that the importation of commodities manufactured in other countries under conditions that are below those obtaining in this country"—
that is the important point—
(both in regard to wages and hours of labour) may have a detrimental effect upon the conditions established by trade unions at home, hereby requests the General Council, in conjunction with the Labour party, to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of this question, whereby the movement may, if possible, have a common policy in regard to the same, and report to the next Congress.
That is a very desirable indication. This Gentleman, in moving this resolution, refers to the conditions as constituting
a positive danger to the conditions we have established here at home.
Then again, Mr. A. Henderson, of the Transport Workers, at the same Conference, moved:
That this Congress directs the General Council to prepare a memorandum from all available information setting forth: (1), the effect of tariff restrictions on trade; (2), the effect of dumping front Great Britain to other countries, and from other countries to Great Britain ; (3), the effect of tariff movements on the stability of trade and employment.''
These two resolutions show how hon. Members opposite regard this question. Both were carried without a card vote by delegates representing some 4,164,000 workers. May I turn to the question of the general improvement in trade under the system of safeguarding. In the safeguarded commodities during the last year 1926–27, the decrease of imports has been no less than 28.4 per cent. The increase of exports was 11.1 per cent. There is a decrease of imports and an increase of exports, which is precisely not only what we wanted, but what we expected.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does the figure 11.1 per cent. increase apply only to those industries that have been given Safeguarding Duties under the safeguarding procedure, or to the McKenna Duties as well?

HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

8.0 p.m.

Captain STREATFEILD: Surely that merely enhances our point. I cannot con-
ceive how hon. Members opposite can wish to reverse that state of things. I see that in the Amendment which has been put down by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, the old cry of the increase in the cost of living is raised. That is just the sort of golden eggshell we might expect from the Liberal party. Hon. Members who say that the cost of living is going up seem to neglect the fact that 12 or 14 commodities constitute the entire basis of the index figure, and they also neglect one point, namely, that of taxation. In 1925, the cost of living was 80 per cent. over the pre-War period; now it is 66 per cent. How does that show an increase in the cost of living? Why should prices rise? One has to remember that a great many foreign industries have been built up because of the British market, and that they have been expanded because their owners know that they can sell their goods in this country, and that, if that market be lost, they and their industries would be ruined; but, sooner than lose that market, they will pay the duty themselves. That and economic experience, show that prices do not tend to rise. In talking about the cost of living, I should like to refer to its first cousin, the standard of living. In this country, the wage earners are fortunate enough, I am glad to say, to enjoy a standard of living which is higher than in any other country except, perhaps, the United States of America. Incidentally, that is a heavily protected country.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What about other protected countries?

Captain STREATFEILD: In this country the workers work shorter hours and have higher wages, and that is a state of affairs of which no one can complain. I, for one, want to see wages as high as industry can afford to pay.

Mr. J. JONES: And hours as long as you like to make them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has spent far too much time in making rather vulgar interruptions. The House listens to him when he makes a speech, and he must try to listen when other hon. Members are speaking.

Mr. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain STREATFEILD: I was saying, we want to see wages as high as industry can afford to pay, the highest standard of living we can get. I suggest that in production the costs of labour are the largest item. [Interruption.] They form the largest amount of the cost of production of any commodity, and in this respect we stand at a great disadvantage in comparison with our foreign competitors, who work longer hours for lower wages. The effect of that is to depress the pan of the scales. How are we to counterbalance that, and to bring the scales even? The time has arrived when hon. Members on all sides of the House have got to answer this question, Are we going to get rid of the disadvantage we are suffering from through our higher standard of living by reducing that standard of living to the level prevailing abroad and thereby be able to compete with other countries—[An Hon. MEMBER: "Where they have Protection?"]—or are we going to maintain that standard of living by the application of the principles of safeguarding? To my mind the answer is obvious. We on this side of the House absolutely refuse to lower the standard of living of the workers of this country. By widely extending the provisions of the safeguarding of industries legislation we can bring our industries on to a far better competitive level with foreign industries.
I commend this Motion with great confidence to the approval of the House. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what we have had so far is good, very good; the only complaint I have to make is that there has not been enough of it. The time is now ripe to extend the principles of safeguarding. The past has been proved, and the future is waiting, waiting for the Government to extend the principles of safeguarding. The Socialist Amendment brings in the question of the most harmful —I suggest it with great respect—and onerous control. It mentions the term
National reorganisation of industry.
I hope I am not too much behind the times, but I like to spend as short a time as possible over this question, and in order to save time I should prefer to express that "nationalisation." The Amendment tabled by the Liberal party would simply leave industry to stew in its own juice, to make the best of the fierce foreign competition with which it is faced
at the present time. Our proposals, on the other hand, are quite definite, and, moreover, they have been proved. One can get up and talk figures and theories for hours and hours, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that we have definite and clear proof on which to go. These proved proposals are definite, and as such I commend them to this House as being, in the terms of the Resolution,
The only political means of accelerating the advent of prosperity.
and what is every bit as important, maintaining the standard of living of the workers of this country.

Colonel APPIAN: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so with better heart because I cannot be accused of having anything to do with trade or of being a capitalist. I have had, however, a pretty wide experience of the world, and during a long lifetime I have seen trade and industry in many countries of the world, including most parts of our Empire. One thing which strikes me above everything else is how extraordinarily conservative the Liberals of this country are. They will not learn. It does not matter how often they have the example, they will not learn from experience. May I go back to what I will call the rise of free trade in this country? We have to. look back 80 years, to 1840. We have to recall the Budgets brought in by Sir Robert Peel in 1841 and 1845. We have to remember that the great Cobden, when he made his maiden speech in this House, in 1840, I think it was, spoke not as a free trader at all but as a pacifist. He wanted free trade throughout the world in order to bring peace to the world.
At that particular period, two great things had happened in the world. We had discovered and utilised steam, and the use of steam had enabled us to wed coal and iron together, and that wedding of coal and iron has produced our wealth. From that wedding of coal and iron our machinery was produced, and our great cotton industry was built up. We had the markets of the world then. There was no one to compete with us, and free trade was the obvious thing for us. Then the world was our customer; to-day we are customers of the world. If we go hack to see the reason why we rose to that prosperity, I know that hon. Members of
the Labour party will not want me to talk about the "industrial period" because we know and we admit—at least I would —that during that period never were men ground down as were the workers of that day. But, remember, that was the period of the Manchester School, of free trade and low wages; they always have gone together. If we look at what America did and why she did it when she broke with us, we shall have an example of what can happen both to industry and to the workers in industry. America has never forgotten Washington's first message to Congress in 1789, in which he said:
Our manufactures should be promoted and protected.
That gave America the greatest of all markets, the home market. The home market is the most valuable market, because it causes a circulation of money at home. High wages are essential to a home market, because unless you have high wages you have no money to spend in the home market. America has always been a protected country, except when a Liberal administration came into
power in 1893, lasting till 1896. That was absolutely disastrous not only to the trade of that country but to the workers. I am going to quote a trade union worker to show what he says about it. Sam Gompers said:
Three million men are now idle.
He was speaking two years after the introduction of Free Trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are five millions now."]
Two thousand million dollars in wages were lost and output is down 44 per cent. Wages fell 69 per cent.
Mark that! Free Trade and low wages.
The National Debt increased by 53,000,000 dollars and business lost 3,600,000,000 dollars.
That was the result of the experiment with Free Trade in America. The swing of the pendulum brought in McKinley, and he brought in the McKinley tariff, and we saw the immediate effects of that tariff. What did it do? It at once restored things. In July wages increased—on the average, by 15,000,000 dollars a year. The labour savings banks deposits doubled in seven years. [Interruption.] I do not want to go into too many other examples. Germany introduced Pro-
tection in 1880, and her trade went from nothing up to the magnificent trade she had in the year when war broke out. Mr. Schneider, the Minister of Commerce, speaking in 1914: said:
German industry is flourishing … more posts than men to fill them and unemployment is local and scattered.
That was the result of Protection in Germany. With immense precautions we have made an experiment, and what I ask the Government to-night is: Is that experiment a success or is it a failure? If it is a success, then the country ought to know it, and the Government ought to inform the country that this is the road and the only road back to prosperity, big trade and high wages. If it is a failure, they should plainly tell the country that it is a failure, and go back to the old method of Free Trade. We must work on a common-sense system. It is no good acting on party lines in this matter. If this is the best thing, let us have it; if it is not, let us thrash out the subject and find out what is the position.
I do not want to weary the House with a lot of figures but I am going to take one or two simple cases which are convincing. Take the question of tyres. We put a duty on tyres rather late, after a great deal of examination. The immediate result was that five of the biggest foreign firms who sell us tyres at once opened businesses over here — the Michelin Company, at Stoke-on-Trent, the Pirelli, an Italian company, I think, at East Leigh, the Indian tyre near Glasgow, the Overman at Birmingham and the Goodyear at Birmingham. The Goodyear firm alone produce 2,000 tyres a day and employ 1,000 men. There are 1,000 men employed in making a foreign tyre in this country, and, what is the main point, they are paying their money to us, to our workers.

Mr. SEXTON: What about the dockers? Has that given them more work?

Colonel APPLIN: If we protected other industries we could absorb more men. I want to see the men who are out of work absorbed, and I am going to show presently how they can be absorbed. You cannot absorb dockers into the tyre industry, and I was not
suggesting it. One of the main arguments against Protection is that it raises prices. What has it done with tyre prices? It has reduced the price by from 5 to 15 per cent. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to verify all these figures from his returns. It is estimated that the foreign motor companies and tyre companies established since the introduction of safeguarding and the passing of the McKenna Duties are employing at least 13,000 workers.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: That is an under-estimate.

Colonel APPLIN: There are 3,000 more employed now in the musical industry than in 1925. Our exports of musical instruments in 1923 amounted to £1,658,000, and in 1927, after safeguarding, they had risen to £2,734,000. I will now take the cotton industry, which has always been frightened by Protection. Some time ago I went over to Rio de Janeiro accompanied by two gentlemen who were experts in the cotton trade. I have heard it stated that you cannot make anything over 80 in cotton outside Lancashire, but I have visited a place where they were making cotton over 120, which is as fine as the finest cotton made in this country. That cotton was being made with coloured labour which was paid very low wages. Not only this, but English machinery was being used, and the men supervising that machinery were experts from our own country. Under those conditions, what chance have we in the cotton trade?
A few days ago, I was speaking at a meeting in London, and, when 1 got on to the platform, the chairman, who was a local draper, handed me a small parcel. I said, "What is in this parcel?" and he replied, "It contains a pair of bed sheets for a double bed; they are hemstitched and made of the finest material." I said, "They are beautiful linen," and he answered, "They are not linen but cotton, and what do you think is the price of them?" I said, "I could not say," and he replied, "I am selling those sheets at 12s. 11d. a pair; they are the finest hem-stitched cotton sheets, and they come from Soviet Russia." That makes us think. In my own constituency we have the second biggest factory in the country for making furniture by machinery. The works are run entirely
by electricity, and everything is done by machinery. The manager of that factory told me that they were paying their men 1s. 9d. per hour. On one piece of furniture there was a beautiful panel of leaves made by machinery, and the manager told me he could show to me a wardrobe imported from Belgium in competition with his own article containing that panel. In Belgium they were only paying their workmen 5d. per hour. That is the kind of competition we have to meet. The only reason this factory was able to compete with Belgian manufacturers was because they had up-to-date electrical machinery, while the Belgians were working under old-fashioned methods. That is a factory which hon. Members can go and see for themselves.
There is another factory in my constituency which is just going to commence work. It used to be a derelict building with no roof on it, and it was suddenly bought by a Dutchman. I afterwards found out who he was, and it seems that this man bought the factory in order to make bacon-cutting machines which used to he made in Holland. I took the trouble to find out from his daughter while she was visiting this country why her father had taken a factory over here, and she said, "A Conservative Government is coming into power in England, and they will put a duty on everything. The reason my father is erecting his factory in this country is to ensure that we shall not have our bacon machines shut out from the British market by a tax." In this ease, you find 500 or 600 men employed making foreign machines, and they are being paid wages which would otherwise have been paid to foreign workmen. That is an indication what safeguarding can do.
I dare say some hon. Members have received a mirror together with a letter containing a picture of a prospective candidate and a covering letter asking whether in view of votes for women he would like to send out some vanity bag mirrors to future electors. The letter states that one can obtain these mirrors at 17s. 6d. per gross, but they can be supplied at. 10s. 6d. per gross if one will accept foreign goods. It appears that the words "Foreign, Made Abroad," were stamped on the boxes and not on the mirrors, which would give the impression that the mirrors were made in
England, but that was the difference between the foreign and the English made mirrors. Of course, for an extra charge you could have anything printed on the back of these mirrors, and, in view of the fact that the Conservative Government are going to give votes to women, a Conservative candidate could print on the back of the mirrors, "I gave you the vote; give it back to me."
I do not want to weary the House with more figures, but I should just like to take four main features, and ask the Government. if they will verify what I am saying. In the first place, with regard to employment, taking the four safeguarded industries fur which we have figures—namely, motors, silk, lace, and musical instruments—the number of people employed has increased by 28,801, or 10.2 per cent. If this policy were applied to the other industries which are not now safeguarded, but which are insured industries, it would mean that 500,000 men would be employed right away, provided that the same thing happened, and I want to ask, have we any reason to suppose that it will not happen in other industries? Now let us take the next question, the question of exports. We find that the exports of safeguarded goods have increased by 11.1 per cent., while, on the other hand, we rind that. the exports of non-safeguarded goods have declined by 9 per cent. during the same period.
There is another point, arid a very important one, though it is usually neglected. That is the question of revenue. We often forget, in talking of safeguarding, and the many benefits that are to be 'obtained from it, the great benefit of getting a revenue paid by the foreigner. [Interruption.] if we make and sell the same thing at the same price, the foreigner must be paying it. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the figures. We have got £11,711,805 in revenue out of this policy. Lastly, there is the question of price. The price has fallen in the ease of every commodity taxed except two, namely, high-class French silk stockings—I really do not know why the price of these has gone up —and pianos. I have taken the trouble to find out why the price of pianos has gone up. There has not been an increase in the price of pianos all round, but it simply means that, where we used to buy
the cheaper pianos from abroad, we now produce these here at a lower price. But the higher-class pianos, of well-known German makes, costing 150 guineas, still come in and pay the duty, and that, consequently, has put up the price of these pianos.
I trust that I have shown to the Government that this safeguarding experiment., small as it has been, has been an enormous success. I want them to. realise that in 1927 we imported no less than £297,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, the production of which employed over 1,000,000 foreign workers. Why should not our English workers have produced those goods? I would ask the Government whether, if these figures are correct, they will consider them. In our great basic industry, the industry which made us great, the winning of coal and iron, these two parts are now divorced. I will not go into the reasons why they quarrelled, but, if we could bring them back once more into wedlock, coal and iron, and protect our steel, we should reabsorb our unemployed, and get back to that prosperity and happiness which this country has a right to have.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the. word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
recognising that the policy called the safeguarding of industries is protection, and that protection has been proved by the practical experience of this and other countries to be harmful to industry, conducive to inefficiency, productive of unemployment, a means of robbing the public for the benefit of a few, and of degrading the standard of living of the wage-earners, strongly opposes such a policy, and calls for a national re-organisation of industry based on sound economic principles.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) who has just sat down will not regard it as being in the least offensive if I say that he began his speech by saying that he had no knowledge of trade, and that I am quite sure that everything he said after that observation has proved the truth of it. I doubt whether, in the long history of the British Parliament a Motion was ever submitted which contained such a farrago. of nonsense as that which has just been proposed. It consists entirely of unfounded claims, of statements which have no justification in fact. If the hon.
and gallant Member responsible for it had been gifted with a slight sense of humour, he might have been saved from making such an exhibition. There is only one omission from the Motion. After claiming that the extension of Protection would solve the industrial problem, abolish unemployment, maintain the standard of living of the wage-earners, and promote national economy—after claiming that it was the only political means of doing that—he might have added, "and of establishing the Kingdom of Heaven."
Claims have been made which cannot be supported by fact. There was a remarkable similarity in the figures given by the Mover and by the Seconder of this Motion, and the conclusion that one drew from that was that these figures' had been supplied from a common source. They certainly have not been derived from the official figures of the Board of Trade, and they certainly have not been gathered from answers that have been given to questions by the representatives of the Board of Trade. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion, and his Seconder, say that they want facts. I will try to give them facts. They both made an apology for troubling the House with figures. I shall make no apology for giving figures, because this is a question that can be settled only by figures, that can be tested only by figures. I will take, first of all, the case of the motor-car industry, because that is one which has received the advantages of a high Protective tariff for a good many years, and it is the most substantial of the industries which are now safeguarded. And, with regard to the use of the word "safeguarded," may I say this, that the two speeches which have been delivered have been full-blooded Protectionist speeches. It is not the safeguarding of an efficient industry which is exposed to unfair foreign competition that the two hon. and gallant Members want, but. Protection. They have argued—at any rate, they have given the impression, and I do not think they deny the accuracy of that impression—that what they want is the protection of every industry. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last gave us a calculation as to what the effect would be if the Import Duties were extended to all the industries of this country. Therefore, what we are arguing to-night is
not an extension of safeguarding under the Prime Minister's pledge at the last General Election. We are arguing Protection, and that is the question I want to discuss.
The motor-car industry has been protected by a high tariff longer than any other of the protected industries, and, therefore, it affords a good test whether this policy has been successful. There is an unwarranted assumption that hon. Members on the other side always make. They jump to the conclusion that, if there has been an improvement in an industry which enjoys the benefit of a tariff, that improvement is wholly due to the effect of the tariff. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there are thousands of factors always operating which influence prices, influence markets and influence the operations of trade. All these might have the effect, apart altogether from tariffs, of reducing prices and causing a temporary stimulus to trade. The motor-car industry is one of that character. I can perhaps make this point not in my own words but in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He put the point with remarkable lucidity and with incontestable force of argument in an observation he made in a recent Budget speech. He said, speaking of motor cars:
It would be foolish for anyone to close his eyes to the actual facts that we have experienced with regard to these duties, but it would be imprudent to attempt to draw a general and unchanging rule from them. The conditions observable are those which apply to trades in a rapid and general state of expansion, through a change in world habits. It is obvious that if a few industries are selected out of all the industries in this country, and for various reasons are given this advantage, they get the advantages of a protective tariff on their own production and do not get any of the disadvantages or conditions which would arise if Protection were extended to every other conceivable article.
The reduction of prices of motor cars in recent years is due to the fact that it is an expanding industry. It is an industry where improvements are constantly being made. Its expansion is not due to these two causes only. It is due to the fact that the motor car producers enjoy all the benefits of Free Trade in every one of the articles they use in the construction of their cars. I have conceded, in agreeing with the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, that a protective duty may be an advantage to the industry to which it is applied, but I am going to contend, not only in regard to motor cars but in regard to every other protected industry, that the application of a tariff on those articles has been a. decided disadvantage to the protected industry. Facts and figures will prove that.
This motor car industry, except for a brief interegnum, has enjoyed protection for about 13 years. What is the purpose of that protection? It is to keep out foreign imports, and the first test I want to apply is, "Has the tariff succeeded in keeping out foreign motor cars?" In the first eight months of 1926 the number of motor cars imported into this country was 6,803. In the first eight months of last year the number was 15,433. Has the effect of a tariff succeeded in keeping out imports? Take the export trade. It is often argued in our Debates on the application of safeguarding duties that the imposition of a duty, by securing the home market to the home manufacturer. will enable him to dump his surplus production at a very cheap rate in foreign markets, or in other words, that it would help the export trade. Let us test that again by facts in regard to the motor industry. In 1925, 11,112 motor cars were exported. Last year the number was 9,926. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about chassis?"] There is an increase in the number of chassis, but out of about 13,000, 11,000 went to Australia, and that was to supply a temporary and a sudden demand which now has fallen off. What are the figures? As a matter of fact we are losing the Australian market. I speak from memory, but I think the number of ears imported into Australia from the United States of America is about three times greater than the number sent from this country. In the first quarter of last year our export of cars to Australia was 27½ per cent. It continued to fall until in the last quarter it had fallen to 16 per cent. I saw some remarkable figures in regard to our trade in motor cars with Brazil the other day. It appears that the visit of the hon. Member and his friends did not do much to increase the trade in motor cars, at any rate, in Brazil, with this country. Last year, Brazil imported 33,000 motor cars——

Sir H. CROFT: Did they come from a Free Trade country?

Mr. SNOWDEN: —and 162 of them came from this country. So that in that respect the import duty has not given such a demand to the export market. What is the present state of the industry? Let us take the opinion of men who really ought to know something about the trade. I read the report of the speech of the chairman of the S.T.D. Motors the other day. This is a short extract:
I suppose most of you know that, generally speaking, the trade at the present time is by no means good, and that, with the exception of a very few of the more fortunate concerns, business has shown a distinct falling-off all round, and as a consequence results have naturally not been so satisfactory. This applies particularly to the small and medium-sized car manufacturers, and may be accounted for by over-production and consequent price cutting.
About the same time the Standard Company's balance sheet was published. That, again, showed the benefit that has been derived by this very well-known company from the imposition of a tariff upon foreign cars. They reported a loss for the year of £118,000, which is just about half the amount of their capital. Another well-known firm, the Crossley, published their balance sheet a few weeks ago, and last year they reported a loss of over £50,000.
In regard to employment, during the 12 months that the duties were off motor cars, employment increased to a greater extent than in any other year. Those who were in the House at that time and remember the ramping, raging, lying campaign that took place during the time that the repeal of the duties was being discussed in this House, will remember the very prominent part that Mr. Morris took. Some of you remember, and I remember very well, getting shoals of printed post-cards every day purporting to be sent by workmen, showing that if the duties were repealed they would lose their employment. Mr. Morris permitted himself to state that if the duties were repealed 2,000,000 men would be thrown out of employment. Last year Mr. Morris made a public appeal for capital, and he published particulars in regard to previous output prospects and the like. Of course, when that prospectus was compiled, Mr. Morris, had forgotton all about
what he had been saying only about 18 months before. I was interested in reading the figures in the prospectus. I find that in 1923–4 the output of the Morris factory was 36,401 cars, and during the year that the duties were off, when everyone of his workmen was to be unemployed, he states in the prospectus that the output increased from 36,000 to 49,755. The total exports in the year before the duties were taken off was 3,300 cars. What happened when the duties were taken off? In the following years his exports reached the figure of 7,416. In regard to unemployment, I find that during the time the duties were off, unemployment in these and in other trades which had been relieved from the burden of duties, fell. It fell from 10.2 to 7.5.

Sir H. CROFT: Give us the number employed.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I should be very glad indeed. I have already made a statement that employment increased more in the year during the time the duties were off than in any other year. If the hon. Member wants the figures he can have them if he takes the trouble to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 29th February, 1928, column 410. So much for motors. These facts disprove every single claim which has been made in the two speeches which have preceded mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The result has been what one expected. Even if a tariff were imposed on an industry of this character, there would be some expansion, but the expansion has not been as great either in production or in export as was the case when the duties were repealed.
I am not going to say very much about lace. Perhaps the most significant comment that has been made about the application of the Safeguarding Duties upon lace was the silence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject when he visited Nottingham and addressed a meeting there in the Autumn of last year. If this action on the part of the Government, in the knowledge of the Nottingham people, had conferred great benefits upon the industry there, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have claimed due credit for it. He said never a word. Now what about lace? The Nottingham lace industry is one which depends for the disposal of the greater part of its output on the foreign market. Since 1925, exports fell—here I
am quoting from a reply given by the President of the Board of Trade last year —from just under £2,200,000 to £1,763,000. The re-export trade has practically been destroyed. Hon. Members appear to attach great importance to the employment which the Safeguarding Duties are supposed to have given. May I, at this point, refer to a reply which was given on the 29th February of this year, in page 410 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, by the Minister of Labour? That. is not very long ago and can readily be checked. The Minister of Labour, in a tabulated statement, gave the figures, in regard to the lace trade, of the estimated number of insured workpeople in July of different years. In the year 1924, the number of insured people in the lace trade was 20,350.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): Employed?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The estimated number of insured people. The point is whether the industry is now employing a larger number of people. In 1925, the number insured was 19,500; in the next year there had been a drop of nearly 1,000 and in 1927 there had been a further drop of 700. How can anybody of common sense make a statement that the application of this duty for the Safeguarding of Industries has provided more employment? In the annual review of the lace trade, which is published by the "Nottingham Guardian" some very extraordinary figures are given. It is quite true that taking the books of the Employment Exchange there apparently was an increase in the number of men employed, but there was an extraordinary decline in the number of women, boys and girls employed. The number of women employed had dropped from 8,000 to 6,900, the boys by nearly a quarter of the number and the girls by about one-half. That means that there has been a change in fashion. That is the explanation.
One hon. Member intervened in the Debate last year and referred to a change in the fashion in regard to curtains. I give the statement for what it is worth, because I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it, but I am told that the trade in the ordinary lace curtain—and this is supported by the decline in the number of boys, girls and women
employed—has fallen off very considerably, whereas the trade to which the hon. Member referred has had an extension during the last few years, and that is the trade in which the men are employed. Therefore, safeguarding has had nothing whatever to do with the improvement in that branch of the Nottingham lace trade.
Now a few words about gloves. May I remind hon. Members again that the professed purpose of the Safeguarding Duties is to stop imports; but they have not stopped imports in the glove trade. In the first nine months of last year 721,000 dozen pairs of gloves were imported.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to leather gloves?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am speaking of leather gloves, whereas I am told, and I got the information from a reliable source from someone in the trade that during the same period the total home production was only just a little over one-half. Therefore, the Safeguarding Duties have not materially increased the home production. Just to give an illustration of the reckless statements that are being made in support of the Safeguarding Duties, may I quote from a speech that was delivered by the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) on the 27th January this year. He was speaking in Somerset and said, in reference to the safeguarding of industries, that
The effect upon this industry"—
that is, the glove trade—
has been that formerly there was unemployment, and now them is none. Now, they are reintroducing the system of having apprentices, for the first time for many years.
It is interesting to note that in a weekly newspaper which, I understand, reported the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there appeared a report of the meeting of the Yeovil Local Unemployment Committee, which was held three days after the right hon. Gentleman spoke. He stated that there. was no unemployment and that the Safeguarding Duties 'had solved the unemployment problem in the glove industry. This is what the report of the meeting of the Yeovil Local Unemployment. Committee says:
The total number unemployed was stated to be 520, showing an increase of 83 for the whole year. The increase was
mainly due to continued depression in the glove industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade asked me whether my figures referred to the leather glove trade. They do. What about fabric gloves? Has the Duty stopped imports? In 1926, the imports amounted in value to £460,000, and the operation of the duty had raised the value of the imports in the following year to £633,000. I might continue to refer to artificial silk, etc., but I will say no more on that point.
In reply to statements made in the course of this Debate, I will summarise the figures, and I will deal with the figures that were given by two hon. Members who said that there had been an increase in the exports of goods which came under the Safeguarding Duties. Take lace. There has been a decline in exports of 32 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "In what period?"] I am comparing 1927 with 1924. In cutlery there has been an increase of 3 per cent. I am taking 1924 because that was the year on which the applicants for these Duties based their case. In regard to gloves there has been a decrease in exports of 13 per cent.; gas mantles, 14 per cent.; and wrapping paper, 43 per cent. The hon. Member who moved the Motion talked about the increase of trade which had recently manifested itself, and be referred to the better state of our credit. Does the hon. Member know to what extent that has been affected by the trade in industries which are safeguarded? Can the hon. Member tell me what percentage of the whole production of the whole national output it is? Does the hon. Member know that it is so infinitesimal as scarcely to affect our imports and exports at all? As a matter of fact, it amounts to about 3 per cent., that is the figure which was given by the Board of Trade in answer to a question some time ago.

Captain STREATFEILD: That is in spite of the Duties. We had been led by the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that these Duties are doing a tremendous amount of harm, yet out of his own mouth he has admitted that they have effected some slight improvement.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all. The hon. Member has misunderstood the point. The point I am making is this, that if
there has been a increase in the export of goods which we manufacture under the protection of these tariffs, it cannot account for the improvement in trade, which he himself admitted. That improvement in trade has come from the industries which have not enjoyed the advantage of safeguarding. That is the important point. Let us take the general trade figures for the last two months; a list was issued a few days ago. Take the iron and steel trade, for the protection of which hon. Members opposite are always seeking. Let us compare the first two months of this year with the first two months of 1925. If I take 1926 hon. Members opposite will at once shout "coal strike." They will shout all the same, however. Compare these two periods. The production has increased by 16 per cent. and unemployment has declined by 25 per cent. Will any hon. Member who follows me in this Debate kindly give me one instance of a protected industry. showing an improvement comparable to that. If these figures had occurred in a. safeguarded industry, they would have been trotted out as proving that the improvement was wholly due to the operation of the Duty. Take iron and steel trade generally. The exports in February this year were over £1,000,000 more than in the corresponding period of 1925. Take machinery; in February the increase in exports of machinery were just over £500,000 more; cotton textiles just under £1,000,000 more, and woollen textiles £326,000. If hon. Members were able to point to figures like these in a safeguarded industry, they would claim that it was wholly due to the operation of the Duty. These increases took place in the first two months of this year in non-protected trades.
But what happened in your protected industries? Look at the returns for the last month in regard to motor cars. Your experts are down by £305,000. I have never been able to understand the mentality of Protectionists. They want to do the most contradictory things. In the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion, we have the familiar but ridiculous statement that if certain articles imported into this country had been produced here, a larger volume of employment would have been provided for British workmen. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H.
Croft)is always making that statement. What does it mean? The hon. and learned Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) has also said it. Those who make that statement evidently think that these imports come into this country and that nothing is sent out to pay for them. The hon. and learned Member for Kidderminster says that we must stop the foreigner from "throwing his goods into our back yard." I wish I had a. neighbour who would throw pianos and motor cars into my back garden, and never expect me to throw anything back. That is precisely the mental condition of the Protectionists. It has never entered into their conception, or they have not the mentality to grasp it, the elementary fact that trade is an exchange of goods.
If it be to the disadvantage of a country to import goods, if it is the case that the importation or the export of goods is a had thing, is injurious, then there is not a country in the world which is guilty of it to the same extent as this country. We exported last year about £600,000,000 of manufactured goods; threw them over the garden wall into somebody's back garden, but we were not so foolish—we shall be if we accept the full Protectionist régime—as not to expect goods in return. A good deal has been said about prices, and whether prices have risen or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement in his, Budget speech last year which will be well remembered. He said that
If prices have fallen that is no proof that these results are due to Protection.
The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made a public comment on that observation to this effect, "Well, it is only the ignorant observation of a Free Trader." Hon. Members have quoted figures this evening, but they were import prices, before the duty has been put on, and, of course, import prices, as everybody knows, are constantly varying with every market fluctuation. The purpose of the duty is to raise prices. If it does not, it fails in its purpose. I would like to read what puts in a nutshell the whole Protectionist case:
What is a protective policy? A protective policy, as I understand it, is a policy which aims at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices. The object of Protection is to encourage home industries. The means by which it attains
that object is by so arranging import duties that the prices obtained in those industries are raised. If home prices are not raised, industry is not encouraged. If industry is encouraged it is by raising prices. That is, in a nutshell, Protection properly understood.
Do hon. Members agree with the statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Then they had 'better reconcile their views with the expressed view of the ablest Member of the British Government, the Earl of Balfour. Is it suggested that the Earl of Balfour is like some other Members of of the Government, saying one thing on one day and another thing on another day? If hon. Members do not accept the opinion of the Earl of Balfour, I am sure they will not object to the opinion of the latest and most distinguished recruit to their party, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who said in this House:
Certainly a duty will have the effect of raising prices. Of course it will raise prices. It is bound to do so. That is the object of it. If it does not do that, there will be no point in it. I make a present of that to hon. Members opposite.
That is quite true. Protection is demanded so as to keep out imported goods, to prevent foreign goods from underselling home goods. The only way to keep out foreign goods is either by prohibition of imports—that is ruled out by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Resolution—or making them too dear to buy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] If they are not too dear to buy the people. of this country will continue to buy in the foreign market, and the whole purpose of the duty has been lost. There is no doubt at all that when it comes to the practical issue Protectionists have to admit that a duty will raise the price. Have hon. Members forgotten the incident on the Finance Bill of last year, when Tory Member after Tory Member got up to protest against the continuance of the import duty on wrapping paper? They said that this paper was used as the raw material of certain manufactures. If that duty raised the price of wrapping paper, a similar duty put on other goods would have the same effect on the prices of those goods. As a matter of fact it is no use, and it is not even necessary, to quote figures. It is simply a question of common sense. You cannot at the same time be keeping out goods by means of a tariff and be letting them in, for that would defeat the purpose for which a duty
is imposed. An hon. Member made an interjection some time ago about the foreigner paying the duty. Again, the effect of Protection would be defeated, because if the foreigner paid the duty he would send into this country articles at the same price at which they were sent in before the duty was imposed.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. This is a Private Members' night, and the right hon. Gentleman has already spoken for 52 minutes.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Resolution raises one other point with which I want to deal. The hon. and gallant Member who put forward the Resolution said that his proposal would lessen unemployment. I marvel at the audacity of Protectionists who put forward that view. It is wholly contrary to world-wide experience. The hon. Member himself admitted that wages were far lower in all protected countries —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not America!"]—with the exception of America, of course, the greatest Free Trade country in the world. But what is the state of things in the United States of America now? Has a Protective policy against foreign countries solved the unemployment problem there? [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course it has !"] There are more than 4,000,000 workpeople out of employment in the United States to-day. The official figures were published only a week or two ago in regard to unemployment in Germany, and there the total is about 2,000,000. Moreover, the Prime Minister in the letter that he sent to Ilford at the time of the recent by-election, pointed to the fact that the standard of living in this country was twice as high as in any of the Protected countries of the Continent, that employment was increasing here while it was decreasing in those countries, and he said, "This is the answer to those who say that no improvement is possible under the existing economic system."
Those who have spoken in favour of the Resolution have not produced one shread of reliable evidence to support the statement that they have made. All the facts prove the contrary of what they have said. Yet I am glad that this discussion has been raised. The speeches
made by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution were not safeguarding speeches; they were full-blooded Protectionist speeches. We ought to have a declaration on this question, and we ought to have a responsible Member of the Government present to make it. The Mover of the Resolution began his speech by saying that his observations were mainly directed to the Government. This is a ginger Motion, a Motion by the die-hards, the out-and-out Protectionists, to ginger up the Government in regard to Protection. I hope the Government will give their support to the Resolution; there is nothing I would like better. Then we should know where we are. The Government would not camouflage Protection at the next election under the euphemism of safeguarding. Every time the question of Protection has been put before the country, it has been overwhelmingly defeated. The people to-day are not as ignorant as the advocates of Tariff Reform imagine. They know that the effect of Protection is what we declare it to be—more unemployment, lower wages, and an increase in the cost of living. Therefore, I repeat that I hope the Government will give their support to this Resolution, and that the Tory party will go to the country at the next election with Protection emblazoned on their banner. If they do, then the defeat of which they are already assured will be doubly assured.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: It is somewhat of an ordeal for a maiden speaker to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on a subject of which he is such an acknowledged master, but I am glad to do so for several reasons, both for the pleasure of hearing him, and also in the belief that that speech may do something to confirm the ranks of his own party. He has spoken of gingering speeches directed to hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. I think a certain amount of gingering in the direction of Free Trade is needed among his own supporters. I have just come from a contest in which Free Trade and, it is true, Tariff Reform as well, were both alluded to as dope and something which did not, one way or the other, matter in the least. As long as that kind of conversation goes on, it is a good thing that the influence of the right hon. Gentle-
man should be directed to what is, after all, one of the most fundamental propositions affecting the welfare of the working classes.
The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to assume that the Motion, as put by the Mover and Seconder, does not mean what it says, and that they are going out for Protection without any regard to the Prime Minister's pledge. I should be very sorry to think that, because the Motion itself says:
The widest extension … consistent with the Prime Minister's pledges.
I am glad they recognise that such pledges have been given, but what do they imagine these pledges amount to? The pledge, in terms, was to impose, not a general tariff, but safeguarding, but that is of no value to the country or to this House unless we have some kind of definition of what safeguarding means. Fortunately there is a White Paper in existence in which the Government have laid down the conditions which safeguarding must satisfy, and which differentiate it from a general tariff. I am bound to wonder whether hon. Members opposite mean that this White Paper is not being properly administered by the Board of Trade and by the tribunals—whether they are saying that the tribunals are full of cantankerous Free Traders who always turn down the applications of every trade—or whether it is the conditions themselves of which they are complaining. There are some things which have to be dons in order to extend safeguarding. The applicant industry has only to put its case and to prove it, but, unfortunately, it would appear that the cases possible for safeguarding are drying up and the safeguarding is coming to an end, because new industries are finding that they cannot to-day pass the tests laid down.
Is there any one of these conditions which is to be abolished as unsuitable Are the Government to be asked to impose a tariff on industries which are not of substantial importance? If industries which are not of substantial importance are to be protected, one will come in the end to keeping out all kinds of tropical fruit in order to foster an entirely unnatural industry under glass. There must be some kind of substantiality in the case. Secondly, "where foreign goods are being imported in abnormal quanti-
ties." But, surely, the whole idea of this safeguarding legislation was that it was an abnormal situation being dealt with and that was why the Safeguarding Duties were imposed. Surely that test is necessary. Then, "where goods are being sold at prices below the proper prices." Surely British industry has not come to the stage when it requires to be protected against the more expensive goods from abroad? Then, "where employment in the manufacture or production is seriously affected in this country." Surely that is the whole essence of the case. I do hope that hon. Members opposite look at it from that point of view. Their safeguarding is put forward, not from the point of view of making profits for a few rich men, but to give employment to a lot of poor people. That is the point, and if that be so, then they will not ask that these conditions should be ignored. Further, "where exceptional competition comes from countries where conditions render competition unfair." Are our industries to demand protection against fair competition? On these benches we have sometimes been accused of giving an unduly gloomy picture of British industries, but surely it is taking a very gloomy view if they are to demand to be protected against competition of any kind even under conditions in foreign countries which are absolutely equivalent to our own.
Lastly, and this is the most important of all, "where the imposition of the duty would have a serious effect on other employment in this country." I cannot help thinking that that is the condition that some hon. Members would like to see ignored, because it is that condition which is preventing the application of safeguarding to a great many industries which they have in mind. Surely it is a policy of despair and a policy of recklessness that every industry should be free to come to the Board of Trade and to the tribunal and demand Protection, absolutely irrespective of the effect on the employment in other industries? If none of these tests can be abolished and none of these barbed-wire entanglements, as they have been called, can be removed by the bombardment from hon. Members opposite, then what is it that this Motion proposes to do? The position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, is that it must be an invitation to the Government
not merely to alter the conditions of the pledges but to disregard them altogether.
The Motion speaks of the proved success, and the Amendment speaks of the proved failure. There is a fairly clear issue, and in support of the right hon. Gentleman I have here the November, 1927, issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette"—the last issue containing the full year's statistics. It gives an interesting table of industries in which increases have occurred and that is followed by industries in which decreases have occurred. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be distressed to find that four of their pet safeguarded industries are on the black list. In that second list there are paper, chemicals, watches and clocks and jewellery, and lace—all included in the list in which decreases have occurred under the Safeguarding Duties. I do not contend that the mere fact that you find, in a list of industries where decreases have occurred, industries which are safeguarded industries proves in itself that safeguarding is causing it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are an infinite number of factors affecting the rise and fall of an industry, and all that we on this side ask is that hon. Members opposite should realise that that applies to an increase as well as to a decrease, and when you are dealing with trades like the motor trade and the artificial silk trade, which have the whole world before them and are opening up altogether new demands, you can expect an increase whatever the tariff conditions may be.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the condition of the motor trade, which is a growing industry, and in a leading article in the "Times" on the 17th of this month, hon. Members may have seen a glowing article about the artificial silk trade, showing how it was bound to grow. It said slippers were covered with it, shoes were laced with it and the material was used for stockings, corsets, suspenders, garters and in lace and, embroidery. With an industry of that universal application one would expect an increase whether there was a tariff or not. It is, in point of fact, only in those industries that you find an increase taking place. I summarise the actual figures with regard to employ-
ment in these industries, and I am bound to say that it is the direct figures of those employed in industry, even more than the figures of retained imports and re-exports, which interest me in this matter. To find out how many people are actually employed under Free Trade and under a tariff is, after all, the essence and the kernel of the whole matter. Other things are subsidiary to that great problem. The figures with regard to silk show that in the two years before the duty was imposed, the increase was 9,250. It was an expanding industry. In the two years afterwards, the increase was 8,520. In other words, the increase goes on but is not maintained at the same pace.
Surely, one can summarise the state of the industries to which these duties have been applied in this way—either they are progressive, or they are stationary, or they are decreasing, and it will be found that where they are progressive industries the progress goes on but not at the same pace; where they are stationary they remain stationary, and where they are decreasing they go on declining, tariff or no tariff. That is what the figures show. In musical instruments from July, 1924, to July, 1925, we get a figure of 1,710 increase, and the average of the three protected years is 1,410. There, again, you find a decreased progress. In cutlery, for the two years before the duty the figure is 3,780, and for the two years after the duty it is 1,320—a very heavy falling off in the progress of the industry. Now I come to the decreases. In wrapping paper, from July, 1923, to July, 1926, there is a decrease of 27 per annum, but in the year 1926–27 there is a decrease of 530— when the industry had the tariff. Chemicals have been protected ever since 1923 and employment has been decreasing ever since 1923. The industry winds up 8,590 to the bad. Lace, from July, 1924, to July, 1925, decreased by 870, but here is a crumb of comfort for hon. Members opposite. The average for the three protected years is a decrease of 733, so that there was a very slight check in the falling-off in that one industry. I submit that these figures prove that you cannot make any substantial difference; that, as I have said, the progressive industry goes on progressing and the declining industry goes on
declining, and that, even within the safeguarded industries themselves, you find no positive benefit.
If that be the case, then it is proof of failure. If you do not get your benefit within the margin of the protected industry, you must take into account all the outside effects upon other industries, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has referred so well that it is unnecessary for me to follow him. It is unnecessary for me to follow up the figures of exports which the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I ask hon. Members opposite, when they have digested them—if they can digest those facts and figures with regard to the safeguarded industries—to think a little of those industries which cannot be safeguarded. We have heard of the sheltered industries. I ask hon. Members to think of the unshelterables. There is the great industry of coal. It has to fight its battle against foreign competition in foreign markets where no duty of this kind can reach it. How is it going to he helped at this time when the loss of the export trade is the greatest handicap which it has to meet if we, by a policy of refusing to take other goods from abroad, are going to make it more difficult for that industry to send its goods abroad.
What of iron and steel? I represent a part of the country where that is the paramount industry, and I speak with considerable feeling upon it. Here again is an unshelterable industry. You cannot bring iron and steel under a safeguarding duty. I seem to hear a murmur of dissent, but a special committee has sat on this matter and has found that it could not be done. The Prime Minister has said so three times in answer to questions in this House, and, although I am not protesting that what the right hon. Gentleman says three times is necessarily infallible, yet when it is a matter of giving an interpretation of his own pledges, I should imagine that he is at least as good a judge as any hon. Member opposite. The right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He did not announce this verdict as something arbitrary. He gave a reason, and the reason was because of the repercussions—that is a splendid word which exactly fits the case —upon other industries. In those repercussions upon other industries, the
North-East area would immediately be struck by the cutting off of the supply of the products upon which it so much depends.
Those industries which depend on iron and steel are at the present moment in the most unfortunate position that can possibly he imagined. They are faced with taxes upon the things which they buy, and they cannot get any protection of the things which they sell. Of all the fiscal positions in which any population could be placed, there is none worse than that. Then, if all other industries are finally brought in, if hon. Members opposite do push the Prime Minister to break his pledge and include raw materials like iron and steel, there is still one Cinderella of industry which they will never bring in, and that is agriculture. I do not hear anyone say, "Why not?" No one means to suggest now that food is going to he taxed, and, if hon. Members opposite make that suggestion, we shall be glad to meet them upon it. But just consider for a moment the effect upon agriculturists, if, one by one, other industries are taxed, so that they have to pay increasingly on the things they use, and they are left finally without protection, but, because the tariff wall has a gap just opposite this industry, and nowhere else, foreign competition is diverted artificially, so that the goods are forced to flow in along the line of least resistance and compete with agriculture more severely than is the case to-day. I wonder what the Government's agricultural supporters—what the National Farmers' Union—would have to say. I should not, of course, include the National Farmers' Union among their supporters any longer. That is another source of annoyance with which they may have to deal.
All the figures which can be produced with regard to exports, reduction of imports, and reduction of retained imports, amount to one thing in the end. They have this common feature. They all show a check upon the movement and handling of goods, and as long as that is recognised even hon. Members opposite must see—their own figures prove it—that you are striking a blow at the docks, at shipping, at warehousemen, at all kinds of internal transport, and at the shipbuilding industry. That industry will build fewer ships because there will be fewer loads for the ships to carry;
and therefore, once again, you affect the iron and steel industry of which shipbuilding is still the best customer. There are all these disadvantages and nothing to gain. An attempt has been made, but I think has already been defeated in the very speeches in which it was announced, to maintain that the standard of living is in some way protected by the extension of these duties. But hon. Members opposite, including the Mover and Seconder, at the same time have pointed to the tariff countries as examples of a low standard of living. When they suggest that the price of the goods is not really raised under this system, one is driven to the conclusion that they can never have attended the hearing of any of the applications which are made for duties before the committees appointed to investigate these matters. Hon. Members will find, if they go there, that the one cry is, "We cannot compete with these cheap goods. Here are these miserable foreigners sending in their goods at prices, such as sheets at 12s. a pair and mirrors at 10s. 6d. a gross, and so forth."
We know the indignation at these prices displayed by an hon. Member who sits below me. These are instances of the kind of foreign goods which arouse their indignation, and when they have got their duties, there can only he one of two results. Either they exclude the goods altogether, and so cause a scarcity, or else they put the price up and cause dearness; and then they come and say they are making no attempt at reducing the standard of living. It has been proved conclusively in the course of this Debate already that if they do not alter the standard of living in that direction, they are failing in their primary object of protecting the home market. Therefore, on all these grounds, because the duties have failed in the very industries to which they have been applied, because they are bound to have the most disastrous effect upon other industries, particularly those which live by the export trade, because the application of these duties must lower the standard of living, and because, when you come to the question of revenue, it is the most burdensome and the least democratic of all possible ways of collecting taxes, for all these reasons, I hope the House will oppose the Motion.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I, in the first place, tender to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Griffith), who has just sat down, the cordial congratulations, not only of myself, but certainly of the whole House, on the admirable maiden speech which he has made? May I congratulate him also on something even more remarkable, namely, that no member of his party has had such a large audience among his own party as he has had to-night for a long time past? The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) took exception to the fact that there was no responsible Minister present. I do not know whether he intended to be discourteous or amusing, but in neither case does it matter very much, because the principle in this country is that responsibility is collective, and in that respect, therefore, I must claim to be a responsible Minister. May I point out to him that the last speaker has shown a most admirable example in not being too free with the time of the House? I think it is perfectly intolerable that on a private Members' night one Member, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, should be so indignant at the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty that he takes up that proportion of the time of the Debate.
With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, I am glad that he studies that very valuable publication, the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," but I would ask him to study it more carefully. He took statistics with regard to the chemical industry, the paper industry, and the clocks and watches industry, and he treated those statistics as if they related to the safeguarded industries. The only branch of the chemical industry which is safeguarded is that of fine chemicals, which employs and is never likely to employ more than a trifling percentage of the total number engaged in the industry. The great bulk of those statistics relate to heavy chemicals, and so those statistics have no bearing on the subject matter under discussion. With regard to paper and paper making and the rest of it, those statistics cover the whole of the paper industry, whereas it is only a comparatively small section which is protected, and once again the statistics are without significance so far as this Debate is concerned. With regard to clocks and watches, included with that section are jewellery and plate, which are very much
more important sections than clocks and watches by themselves. It is evident, when we have had a period of suppression of our spending power as a result of the events of 1926, that one of the things on which people save is jewellery, and to mix up the statistics with regard to clocks and watches, which are a comparatively small section, with the very much larger jewellery statistics, shows that the hon. Member, with profound respect to him, should take a little more care in studying the "Labour Gazette."
With regard to lace, the hon. Member was wrong in precisely the way in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, or his friends, ask questions in this House, and they draw them in the right way so as to get the answer in the form that suits them best. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you never do that?"] Probably I have done the same thing myself, but that is no reason why I should not expose the iniquity of other hon. Members. Let us take these figures with regard to lace. The statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman are quite correct. They are the statistics of the people registered as belonging to the industry. The lace industry has been declining for the last 20 years. Roughly speaking, at the time when the safeguarding duty was imposed, the number of people employed was half what it was 20 years previously. There has been a constant drift of people out of the industry. The number of people registered in the industry is the number on the 1st July in each year who were actually at work in the industry, or who, when they were last at work, had been at work in that industry. The fair thing to do is to deduct from the number registered as belonging to the industry the number who are out of work, and the difference represents the number in work, apart from some small, trifling error due to unrecorded unemployment or sickness. If that fair test be applied, it will be found that, in spite of the fact that the lace industry has been declining steadily for many years, the number at work in it to-day is greater than it was when the duty was first imposed.
I think the House ought to be very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild) for
giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter, and that the House rejoices in that opportunity is shown by the very large attendance of Members of all parties which has been present throughout the Debate. I feel that the more we discuss this matter the better. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), who seconded the Motion, drew attention to the position with regard to prices, and I think I am right in saying that, broadly speaking, the statements he made with regard to prices were accurate, but I hope before I sit down to be able to discuss that matter at a little greater length.
Now I would like to devote a few moments to what I would call the responsible Member of the Opposition, who honoured me by his presence to-night. He reminds me of Galileo, or rather Galileo's critics. Galileo was a great scientist who discovered something about gravitation. He discovered that in a vacuum a feather and a lump of lead would reach the ground at the same time if dropped together from the same height. The ancient philosophers did not believe that to be.possible. They worked it out in their heads, without reference to practical experience, and when they saw the experiment actually performed before their eyes, they would not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is the ancient philosopher of Free Trade. Evidence has no effect on his mind; he is perfectly impervious to it. If I may say so with respect., on this subject he is really rather an intellectual snob. He addressed us on the motor trade from half-past eight until ten minutes to nine, in which period he said with great emphasis that the matter had to be tested by figures, but it was not until he had been speaking for 20 minutes that he got on to the figures.
His statistics were interesting, but he sounded as if he had been assisted in the preparation of his great speech, not by cue person, but by several persons. The gentleman whom he consulted first had only got the book from the Vote Office up to August, 1927, because he took the first eight months of 1927. But why stand fast at the first eight months when he can get them to the end of February? When he went later on, he got another book he got the whole of 1927 and compared it with 1925. Then, a little later
on, he took February of this year and compared it with February of last year. If you are examining this question on a scientific basis, why not choose your times uniformly throughout? When he was talking about the export of motor cars, he forgot the chassis. The body of a motor car may be very attractive to sit in, but if you want to make any progress, you must have a, chassis, and I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman forgot the chassis, because he is a reactionary in this matter.
Of course, there has been a tendency for the export of complete motor cars to decline, because a great many countries which are relatively non-industrial countries find that they are in a position to build bodies on chassis made in the industrial countries. Therefore, there has been a definite tendency for some decline to take place in the export of complete cars, accompanied by an expansion of the exports of chassis. If that be the case, no fair controversalist will select from the statistics merely figures that fit in with his argument. If he surveys the position as a whole with regard to motor cars, he will find that the value or the exports in 1927 was far greater than in any previous year, and that the figure representing volume shows that expansion is greater, because we have to take into account the constant drop in prices, which means that the expansion in value represents a far greater figure in actual volume of exports. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us anything about that. Then he drew attention to the fact that certain motor car firms have done badly. It is true that 1927 was not a very satistory year, from the point of view of the motor car trade in this country. Why? You cannot buy motor cars unless you have the money. It is true that, in these days, the possession of a motor car is no proof of wealth; it only proves that you have paid the first instalment; but even then, broadly speaking, the sales of motor cars tend to increase when the country has had a period of prosperity Naturally, motor cars tend to be bought rather more by the well-to-do section of the community than by the rest.
It is broadly true that in 1927 the dividends of a great many concerns of all kinds were substantially reduced, as a result of the events of 1926, and the level of purchasing power of people who are
the buyers of motor cars was reduced, but, having regard to all these circumstances, despite the adverse condition in the market, the British motor car production shows a substantial increase in 1927 over any previous year. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked that fact. Then he goes on to suggest that the Lace Duty has not been successful. I have already given some figures with regard to the expansion of employment. In round figures, 1,000 people more are at work in the lace trade than when the duty was imposed. The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to the fact that there has been some diminution in exports. I am not going to deal with this matter at great length, because my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade dealt with it in a recent Debate. The exports of lace from all the lace-producing countries have been declining of recent years, particularly to the United States, which has in the past been a large consumer. We have not suffered in this respect more seriously than France. The apparent decline in the re-export trade is very largely due to the fact that, the moment an article becomes dutiable, the bulk of the re-export takes place in bond and the goods transhipped in bond vanish from the figures of exports and imports.
I was surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to gloves. I hope that I did not misunderstand him, but he seemed to imply that the industry has suffered from some reaction. I have in front of me statistics prepared on the highest possible authority—that of the Joint Industrial Council of the industry. The duty which was imposed as from December 22nd, 1925, came into effective operation on the 1st of January, 1926, so that we can regard the fourth quarter of 1925 as a period before the imposition of the duty. The production of leather gloves in the fourth quarter of 1925 was 102,000 dozen pairs. I am leaving out the odd numbers. In the fourth quarter of 1927, it was 134,000 dozen pairs, which was an expansion of nearly a third. In the case of fabric gloves—where, if you examine only the import and export returns, apparently the figure is not likely to be so good as when you come to production—you find an expansion from 24,000 dozen pairs in the fourth quarter of 1925 to 56,000 dozen pairs in the fourth quarter of 1927. In
the face of those authoritative figures of the expansion in production, which is reflected in the expansion of employment, what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman trying to represent that the glove industry has not benefited? On the question of prices the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough made a statement in which he said that if you had safeguarding applied, the people in the other industries would suffer because they would have to pay more. No hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House is entitled to make that statement any more, unless he proves it. For 60 or 70 years, merely by asserting loudly the statement that an import duty necessarily raises prices, the Free Trade people have humbugged the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
Let us have a look at some of the facts. Motor cars to-day are, in sterling value, cheaper than in 1914. If you make a correction for the change in the value of money, motor cars are 40 per cent. cheaper than in 1914. In the case of motor cycles, the 2¼ h.p. machines were, in 1912 £42, in 1913 £40, and in 1927 £36. The 3½ h.p. motor cycle shows a similar reduction; in the case of the 6 h.p. motor cycles these is a slight increase, and the 7 h.p. are the same price. There is no increase there in prices as the result of the duties. Motor tyres have only recently become liable for duty. After the duty was imposed, foreign motor companies increased their prices by about 10 per cent. The duty imposed was 33⅓ per cent. They raised their prices only 10 per cent., so at worst, the consumer was only bearing 10 per cent., and someone else—the foreign producer and the various people handling them, possibly—were bearing the remainder, but they did not persist in that policy for very long. They persisted for a few months only. In other words, they failed to profit by the tax, their prices were forced up, and they made a larger reduction than the previous increase, with the result that the prices are lower than at any time when the duty was imposed. The bulk of the home producers of motor tyres have been brought into line with the foreign firms. It is true it did not apply to all sizes and types of tyres, but there is a general reduction of about 5 per cent. The price of rubber has varied to a certain extent, but the heavy drop has
taken place since we have collected these statistics.
Take the case of pianos. The prices were reduced by British makers on several of their models in the latter part of 1925 and again in 1926. They also report that the German manufacturers, in their efforts to retain a hold on the British market, reduced their prices in April, 1926, by some 14 per cent. on the average.
We come now to artificial silk yarn. The average export value of artificial silk yarn, and that is a fair measure of the general price prevailing—it is not always easy to get exact prices—has fallen from 6.4 shillings per lb. in 1925 to 4.3 shillings per lb. in 1927. Apply the test not to silk yarn but to that form of artificial silk of which we see most in these days. I understand that you can buy artificial silk stockings at nearly any price, down to 6d. each—is. a pair, but they have to be sold at 6d. each on account of the policy of Mr. Woolworth. It is universally known by every one of these young women who are shortly to be enfranchised that there has been a substantial cut in the price of their stockings since the duty went on. I have not forgotten that famous occasion in 1925 when the other hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) paralysed us and terrified us by producing for our edification samples of stockings, and telling us what the young women would do if the Silk Duties were imposed. All her predictions have been falsified, and I rejoice as much for my political sake as for the sake of her own pocket, because she has benefited along with the rest of those who buy silk, artificial or otherwise.

Mr. MacLAREN: Mind your own business.

Mr. WI LL I AM S: My business is to promote the sale of artificial silk stockings and every other commodity. When we come to gloves it is difficult to say what is meant by prices. It is easy to deal with certain standard prices in certain industries. There is the price of Manitoba wheat. Is not that the standard by which you measure the price of wheat? And there there is a standard for cotton. But in the case of the bulk of these safeguarded articles they are individual articles, each of which has its own personality, and price com-
parisons become exceedingly difficult. I am perfectly certain that by a very careful selection one might prove anything. I have here a very large variety of prices. I do not know what all the names mean. Ladies' two dome chamois gloves have fallen from 52s. 6d. per dozen pairs in 1925 to 49s. 6d. Ladies' two dome nappa or suede gloves have dropped from 60s. to 58s. I do not want to weary the House with a lot of figures about glove, prices. Will hon. Members accept my assurance that the bulk of these statistics, practically the whole of these statistics, bear out the fact that there have been very substantial—no, not very substantial, but there have been reductions in the price of gloves?

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what has been the reduction in the price of wheat between those years? [HON. MEMBERS: "That has nothing to do with it!"]

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am told by some of the farmers that it has gone down too much, but I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison)—I think it is he, but I am not quite certain, because he is in the shade, for the first time—to recall what was predicted by his colleagues when the Glove Duty was under discussion. They told us that in every case prices would go up. I am pointing out that they have gone down. Take the case of men's lisle one button gloves. These are foreign made, and the figures I am giving are the foreign manufacturers' net prices to the wholesalers. In 1925, at the time when there was no duty in force, the price per dozen pairs was 9s. 9d. Then the duty was imposed. I speak subject to correction, but I think the duty was a third of the value, and the price at which they were selling in 1926, a year later, was 10s. ld. There had been a rise of 4d., though the duty imposed had presumably worked out at 3s. 2d., or would have worked out at 3s. 2d. but for the fact that the foreign manufacturer cut his price, and, by cutting his price, to some extent reduced the burden of the duty, since the duty is not a specific duty but an ad valorem duty.

Mr. T. SHAW: Are they not of cotton?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) asks a question. These are lisle One-button gloves, which I think are made of cotton. Yes, that is it. All I can say is I think that is correct, for these particular ones——

Mr. SHAW: I do not want to make a debating point, but in these discussions it is essential that we should get at the facts, either from one side or the other, in order that we may know exactly what is the position.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I quite agree. Let us see if we can find some comparative figures. Yes, I think we have got some. There was an increase of 4d. in fabric gloves, though the duty was nominally 3s. 2d., so the presumption was that the other 2s. 9d. fell on the foreign manufacturer; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, having a keen regard to his constituents, who possibly produce the raw material, says, "Let us he fair." All right, let us move on to leather. There is nothing like leather. Two-butt leather—whatever that may mean. Remember that leather has gone up in price. The price in 1925 was 27s. 10d.—these were French ones. In 1926 the price quoted by the manufacturers to the wholesalers was 30s. That is an increase of 2s. 2d. But the duty would he about 9s. 2d. There has only been that increase of 2s. 2d., despite an increase in the price of leather, which has gone in the opposite direction to the right hon. Gentleman's commodity. I hope he is paying careful attention now that the story works the other way round. Even in that case, the proportionate difference is not material.
What is the conclusion? The conclusion is this, that, broadly speaking, these import duties have not been borne by the British consumer. In some cases, as a matter of fact, prices have fallen because our own manufacturers have been enabled to manufacture under far more economic conditions than was possible to them before they had security in their own markets. The duty has been passed in part on to the foreign producer, in part, presumably, on to the importing merchant, and possibly, in some cases, on to the retailer. It has not been passed on to the consumer. The outstanding case which has always been put before the people of this country
in objection to any policy of safeguarding was that it would add to the burden of the consumer.
There is just one point with which I must differ with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion. I cannot agree that safeguarding is the only political means of accelerating the advent of prosperity. I regard it as an important one, because it must be recognised that there are other causes than foreign competition which depress trade. For example, it is universally recognised how serious is the burden of local rates, particularly on the heavy industries, and, as has been stated in the King's Speech, this question is engaging the anxious attention of the Government. The Government have already announced that they do not propose to alter the general procedure laid down in the White Paper during the lifetime of the present Parliament Obviously, however, they will take into consideration all experience gained under that procedure in order to determine what method of procedure may be most convenient in the future for giving effect to the policy of safeguarding which has proved so beneficial.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I am afraid that in the very few remarks I have to make to-night I shall please nobody on either side of the House. I am speaking as one of those—they are not so few as people think—who are Conservative Free Traders, and I view this Motion with—well, I object to it. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is not far wrong when he called it "undiluted nonsense." I must confess I agree with him about that, but I do not agree with him when he says that the Government will go to the country next time as the Protectionist party. That is my reason for getting up to-night—in order to make it clear that not everybody on this side is a Protectionist, that there are, at all events, some. Free Traders who are not going to be turned over by our friends -on this side. I want to remind those who support this Motion that by going in for Protection our party has always met disaster. The Seconder of this Motion went back to the time of Cobden. I do not propose to go back so far as that, but I remember that Disraeli, before he was Prime Minister, was a Protectionist.
When he became leader of the Conservative party he never touched Protection at all. After that, the Conservative party held office for some time and they did not touch Protection until 1896, when they took it up again. In 1910 they had two tries, and each time they failed. Since then, in 1923, the present Prime Minister had a flutter with it, but he was brought to earth rather rapidly that time, and I hope he will not touch it again. No doubt it will be argued that as the Conservative party has adopted Protection, and it has been passed in the House of Commons, the Government had better get a move on. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) sways the Conservative party at conferences with great ease, and arguments in favour of Protection which contain about 1 per cent. of intelligence and 99 per cent. of prejudice often raise loud cheers for a subject like Protection.
I was rather glad to notice that the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to the Debate to-night, was very cautious as to what he said about the Government's activities on this subject. He told us a great deal about individual prices and figures, and he dealt with them with very great knowledge because he has been accustomed to dealing with them before he took office. He dealt with those statistics with a great deal of skill, but he was very careful when he came to forecasting what the Government was going to do. I sincerely trust that the Government will take note of the case which has been made out by the Opposition, and will do nothing in a hurry on this question. The whole subject has been discussed so widely that I have very little more to say. Everybody realises that it is easy to take one or two special trades and produce good results. I admit that the safeguarding duties have been very carefully applied, and it would have been a very extraordinary thing if they had not produced a successful result. A great tribute has been paid to the present scheme of safeguarding and the system of inquiries, but there is a strong argument for doing away with those inquiries because later on we may get quite different results.
Broadly speaking, as the case was made for a full Protectionist tariff by both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, it seems to me to be quite impossible to
go beyond the few Safeguarding Duties now in force without getting into industries whose products are themselves the raw materials of other industries, and that is bound to create hardships and difficulties far beyond the benefits conferred on any particular trade. Agriculture has been mentioned, but it must be remembered that there is no benefit at all that can be conferred upon agriculture in this way. It can only make the damage worse. When this country was a. Protective country, and the Corn Laws were in operation, we then said to the farmer, "If you have in the future to sell in the cheapest market, anyhow we will see that you buy your materials in the cheapest market, too." That was Free Trade. What are we going to do now if we extend safeguarding to agriculture? We are going to say to the agriculturist, "You will continue to sell your goods in the cheapest market, but we are going to see to it that you buy your materials in a dear market."
There is just one other point that I should like to make. I think that hon. Members who have been taking part in this Debate have rather forgotten that there is another pledge of the Prime Minister's which governs the situation to a certain extent. The Prime Minister said that the Government were not going to recommend a general tariff until there was clear evidence that the country—not the party, but the country—were disposed to change their minds on the subject. Has this House, as representing the country, changed its mind? The benches on both sides are full. Why are hon. Members here? Because they have their eye upon the country. They have realised that here is a half-volley given to them, if I may use that expression, and they only want the Government to take it up. I think I have said enough to make clear my point of view, with which some of my hon. Friends may not agree. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith), who spoke so well, referred to the Safeguarding Rules, of which I, too, for the sake of greater accuracy, have obtained a copy. I would like to know what the Mover, or the Seconder, or the supporters of this Motion would propose to do in regard to those Rules. Do they want to sweep them all away? If so. what do they propose to substitute in their place? That is rather an important
question, because lately in this House we have seen, in question after question from below the Gangway on each side, pressure put upon the Government to safeguard the steel industry. Is political pressure to be the new way of imposing duties? If it is desired to do away with Rules of this kind, what, else is there except political pressure? I should like very much to know what the supporters of this Motion would propose to set up in place of the White Paper.
I have mentioned, and others have mentioned, the question of steel. Like the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, I come from a place which is not far from the steel industry. I live within seven miles of a very big steel-making district. I have in my constituency many workers in that industry, and I naturally follow its fortunes with interest. We hear questions in this House about the safeguarding of steel. I would like to ask, what is steel? We can run through a whole range of articles, numbering, I suppose, nearly 100, starting from pig iron, and passing on to plates, angles, and so on, right up to steel girders. Are you going to safeguard the lot? Is that the proposal, or are you only going to safeguard one or two? If only one or two, why not the lot? The proposers of the Motion are entirely lacking in accuracy. The public entirely fails to realise how many articles are covered by the name of steel.
Steel is going through an exceedingly difficult time, but other industries, too, have been through equally difficult times. Shipbuilding has been through just as bad a time as the steel industry is going through. Shipbuilding is getting right. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "Free Trade"] No, I do not think it is Free Trade. They have cut here and cut there arid at last, on the Tyne, anyhow, shipbuilding is coining back into its own. A shipbroker said to me the other day, "We have been on the rocks for four years and we are just getting right. We have cut our costs and we have made all sorts of unimaginable economies. Now we are through and we see daylight." What is going to happen? To come along on top of that and propose to safeguard steel and put up the price of the plates that we use would be monstrously unjust. That is merely an illustration of the repercussions of safeguarding an
industry like steel. Why cannot the steel industry do what the shipbuilding industry has done for itself already? Why cannot they go in for a little reconstruction? They had to raise money at high prices just after the War and that is making the situation difficult more than anything else. Figures have been given showing their production. It is not their production, it is really their finance that is wrong. if they can reconstruct, the steel industry may come back to its own quicker than many people think. The Motion purports to indicate the only way by which we can secure economy, prosperity and all sorts of things. It seems to me in these very difficult times rather futile to say the only way is for industry to depend on State aid. It is far better to say to industry, "The only way is for you to depend upon yourselves," and to make industry understand that political action is not going to be of any use to them. If we can rub that in and make them drop political action they will come back to life and get through far quicker than by any other way.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not spend very much time in answering my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown), who has just sat down, because, after all, when an hon. Member stands up in this House and commences his remarks by saying that he cannot pay much attention to the unanimous votes of the National Unionist Association—the democratic organisation of his party—I think that he cannot claim to be expressing the democratic view of the party as a whole. I should like to ask him to consider in the days to come what he has to offer his constituency, where, I believe, there is great misery, not only among the steel workers but among the coal workers. I would ask him what he is going to do for them? I venture to think that they will not be quite satisfied if he merely tells them: "You ought to be more efficient, and that in spite of the fact that your industries are so depressed you ought to go on the market for millions of money to reconstruct your industries." Unless you are going to give them a breathing space, how are they to have a chance to carry out the reconstruction that he desires.
I am not going to say anything about agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why
not "] Why not? I hope hon. Members will forgive me. I am unfortunately suffering from a rather bad throat, and I cannot shout against the Liberal party. Although the Liberal party have come here in such large numbers to-night, I hope that one at a time will interrupt me. I am not going to deal with agriculture this evening, because it is not included in the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, for the very simple and explicit reason that the Prime Minister gave a very definite pledge that agriculture was not to be included and that no new duties were to be placed on foodstuffs. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) can find a loophole in that, I will be very glad to join him. He knows that I would like to see those Measures extended much further than is possible at present. Probably my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hex-ham agrees that to give agriculture a chance to revive you must try and relieve the great burden of rates. I do not know where he is going to get the money. Certainly not from the allied steel industry in the next six or seven months, I fear. I venture to suggest that he should consider whether the money for the relief of agriculture might not come from increased Customs duties from our foreign competitors in manufactured goods.
I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). I think that everybody will agree that in form, in matter and in delivery it was an admirable example of what a maiden speech ought to be. I should also like to congratulate him, because I feel that he mug have won his victory very largely on his own personality. If there are some constituencies in this country which have suffered more than any others from our policy of free imports since the conclusion of the War, I fear that his constituency must be included amongst those unhappy neighbourhoods, especially when we remember the impassioned statements of the former Member, whose death all of us, of every party, deplore, and remember how, again and again, for the last six years he used to come down here and with such eloquence implore the Government to give special relief to the Borough of Middlesbrough. I think, therefore, the
hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon having won his constituency, although I think his friends who sit around him, perhaps, can hardly regard it as a very great victory for Free Trade as against Safeguarding.

Mr. HARRIS: An enormous victory!

Sir H. CROFT: Well, the majority was reduced from 9,000, I think, to 86, and since I hear the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs applauding my remarks, I would remind him that recently he has been adopting mathematical calculations, which, I think, have interested a great many people. For instance, in two previous by-elections, I think, he added together the votes of his own party and of the senior party of the Coalition and described it as the anti-Government majority. When we remember the great fund which was collected by the right hon. Gentleman which, on his own showing, was collected in order to fight and defeat Socialism, I must confess I can hardly understand how he is able to talk about this united anti-Government majority. I am credibly informed that during the Middlesbrough Election, not merely once but many times, Socialist speakers said that if they had their way they would have total prohibition of foreign steel. It is only fair, since arithmetical calculations are being made, that I should inform the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that at the last Election the officials of the Socialist party declared that they stood neither for Protection nor for Free Trade. Therefore, I think we can claim that at Middlesbrough there was an anti-Free Trade majority of 8,000 votes.
I want to sum up our case. We do not submit a lot of the things that have been attributed to us to-night, but we do submit that it has been definitely proved by the Government policy of safeguarding that it is the one policy which at the same time can improve employment, can give fair play to British industry without affecting or harming any other industries, which can raise the standard of living or, at any rate, can maintain it amongst the workers of this country, and can provide real economy in order to restore the national finances. One word with regard to economy, because the right hon. Member for Colne
Valley (Mr. Snowden) who, I am sorry to say, is not present, was rather glib about that part of our Resolution. I submit, and my figure has been agreed to by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), that unemployment in this country is costing the taxpayers, the ratepayers and industry something in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000 a year. We have, as my hon. and gallant Friend stated earlier in the Debate, over 1,000,000 unemployed, and we import foreign manufactured goods which have employed more than 1,000,000 foreign workers. If we can solve this problem of unemployment by a wider system of safeguarding, then, by the great saving of the cost of the unemployed, by increased Customs revenue, which has already been so successful in its limited application, by an increase in the yield of Income Tax and Super-tax from the reviving industries to which we give security, we can not only reduce substantially direct taxation upon the workers and the poor of this country, but we can reduce the Income Tax by something like 1s. 6d in the pound. If we can do that, I think it will be agreed that it is a great economy. I invite any hon. Member of any party to tell me what other way there is of establishing a really great economy in these days. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, speaking the other day at Penmaenmawr, said:
Protection hoped to develop industry by putting up prices, or by fixing prices at a high level.
Something of the same kind was said by the right hon. Member for Coble Valley. I do not know from whom the right hon. Gentleman was quoting, but I do not believe that there is anybody who has been associated with the movement to try to get fair play for our industries in this country, who has ever expressed a desire that prices should be raised. On the contrary, we submit that what this country wants is a stabilisation of prices and that industry should be allowed to have an economic price. Not one of us, as far as I know, has asked for an increase in price, not even in connection with agriculture, although it is sometimes said so. In the Amendment the Socialist party seems very concerned to point out that safeguarding is Protection, but their Vote of Censure should not be against my bon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion but against the right hon.
Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who I think invented the word "safeguarding"; at any rate his Government was responsible for inventing it, and if there is to be any censure it should be on the benches immediately behind me. I do not want to drag into the discussion one or two small industries, because I believe we are all in a frame of mind, at any rate the Government and the official Opposition are—the Trade Union Congress have approved it—when we consider that we should look into these questions and see where we stand. I need hardly remind the House that a Committee was formed by the Socialist party to look into the question of sweated wages, and whether there should not be prohibition of cheap sweated foreign goods. I cannot remember who the Chairman of the Committee was.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was Chairman of that Committee, and that it recommended that there should be not a tariff but a prohibition on imported goods coming into this country manufactured under conditions which contravened the Washington Convention.

Sir H. CROFT: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend because it proves that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley when he was attacking us for our moderation in safeguarding was all the time a Prohibitionist. I want briefly to deal with the six main points of Free Traders and apply them to the test of safeguarding in its proved success by His Majesty's Government. First, they have always told us that prices under any form of Protection must be raised and that the consumer must suffer. If we take that argument and apply it to the range of duties our opponents will admit that in the aggregate there has been no rise in prices and that, in fact, in many industries there has been a distinct decrease in prices. There may be one or two articles in which the prices have risen, but I am not going to argue that. I think gas mantles will be written on the tombstone of the Liberal party after the next election. Anyone interested in these questions will naturally do everything to see that the consumer is not ill-
affected, but we on these benches are more concerned with producers than we are with consumers. We are concerned for those who toil with brain and hand, who live by sweat and toil, and we leave the lilies of the field, those
who toil not neither do they spin,''
and those who grow fat on foreign merchantry, to the championship of the Liberal party, which we know will be very effective. But we do not pretend, and it would be absurd to imagine, that anyone who is responsible says that a duty necessarily lowers prices. What we do say is this: That we have absolute proof, in the scheme of duties that the Government have imposed, that you can produce largely and, therefore, cheaply only if your industries are given security against a flood of foreign goods produced under lower labour conditions.
A second point which the Free Traders have always advanced is this: They, say that since we so. largely depend on our overseas trade, tariffs would be ruinous, because they would restrict our export trade, as our power of sale would be affected by the rise in prices. I think that that is a fair description. Price has been adequately disposed of already. But let us examine exports. And may I remind Free Traders that this question of exports is their own particular great test? It is not a subject which we raise. We have had issued only about 10 days ago, a complete list of the exports, safeguarded goods, from this country, for the first six months of 1925 and also for 1926 and 1927. The satisfactory point is that in every single case, except that of fabric gloves, we find that exports have actually increased. I think that that is a fact which once and for all gets rid of the major contentions of the Free Traders. These figures cannot be.affected by any red herrings which may he drawn across the track. If the lion. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) were here I should say not even £3,000,000 worth of red herrings.
I go further, and to this statement I particularly ask the attention of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I challenge any Free Trade authority to deny the fact that, taking the whole period of years since we abandoned Protection in this country and adapted free imports, if you compare our total foreign trade, our exports
and our total foreign trade, with every one of our great protected rivals, they have every one increased their foreign trade, their overseas trade, to a greater extent than we have done. If that is true, I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that it cannot be pretended that the dock industry, the carrying industry, the shipping industry, is going to be affected. It absolutely cuts out that argument once and for all. Therefore, let us agree to get on with the business and not pretend that these arguments have the slightest significance.
Another thing which the Free Traders always claim is that the imposition of customs duties leads to inefficiency and eliminates competition. I mentioned this subject in the Debate on the Address, and I am glad to say that I was immediately contradicted by hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches, who no longer maintain that that is so with the safeguarding of industries. I was rather surprised at the time, but I have now discovered the reason. It is that their Yellow Book is based on the fact that the troubles of British industry now are due to inefficiency, vis-à-vis our protected rivals. Lack of competition is also an argument of which we are not likely to hear much again. I wonder if the House is aware that in the past three years over 30 foreign firms have brought their factories to this country, and are now manufacturing their goods here and employing over 20,000 British workers. To that extent, the whole of British industry has had a great advantage, and so also has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who does not quite appreciate the value of it, though it means a noble contribution to the Exchequer. May I mention in this connection that an artificial silk expert in Holland, Mr. Verstyven, a few days ago completed the purchase of 21 acres of land near Nottingham for the purpose of building an artificial silk mill. He says:
The new mill will be one of the best in Britain. It is the fifteenth of any size to be built in this country and three years ago there was only one. That is due to your Safeguarding of Industries Act.
He referred, of course, to the Silk Duties, but it is permissible for a foreigner to make a mistake when we find even hon. Gentlemen above the
Gangway making the mistake. If that be the lack of competition in British industries, I venture to think we must rewrite the English dictionary. It also completely disposes of the fourth point which Free Traders make, which is, that the consumer and not the importer will pay the duty, even if you can produce the goods equally well yourselves in your own country. If the importer believed he could pass the duty on to the British consumer, why did he root up his factories and buy expensive factories in this country? He brought the industries here, as we said he would, in order to get inside our tariff and in order not to have to pay the duties. The fifth point which Free Traders have always told us is, that you cannot at the same time by imposing duties give employment and raise revenue. The answer to that is that, under the Government policy, you have given a greater amount of employment to scores of thousands of workers, brought hope and happiness once more to their dependants, and, at the same time, increased the revenue to the British Exchequer by foreign contributions amounting to something over£11,000,000 per annum.
Then there is the sixth and last point of the Free Traders—and we had it again to-night, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was most scornful when he said, "Do you imagine, if you are buying goods from abroad that they are merely throwing them over the wall? "and so on. Of course, it is obvious that goods are paid for by goods and services, and it is equally obvious that if you can produce goods in this country they are still paid for by British goods. In other words, if in London you are purchasing goods from Newcastle, the imports from Newcastle are paid for by the exports from London to Newcastle. I defy any economist to deny that is true. [Laughter.] Since I find that there is a certain amount of ribaldry among the ranks of Tuscany, I ask them, do they deny that if you sell rails from Middlesbrough in exchange for boots from Newcastle, that that is a double advantage to British labour, to British industry and to the British Exchequer? There is no answer, for the very simple reason that one who has been spoken of as the future Socialist Prime Minister—if there ever is one—used those
very words, and, of course, he is correct. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). The only difference between the policy of those who sit on these benches and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is that he wants an exchange of goods between Britain on the one side and Czechoslovakia on the other, while we want an exchange of goods between Britain on the one side and Britain on the other, if you can, and if not, with the British Empire overseas.
I am going to make a request to the Liberal party. Do they deny that you must give security to British industries where there is unfair competition caused by the dumping of goods below the cost of production? I gather that hon. Members agree to that proposal. Let it be placed upon the records of the House that the Liberal party no longer challenge the right of British industry to this protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then all I can say to Members of the Liberal party is that there is a very serious revolt against their own leader because those were his exact words in a letter to Mr. Bonar Law in 1918. In conclusion I wish to say a word to His Majesty's Government. Grateful as we are for all they have done we ask them to realise that in the steel, textile, hosiery, jute and glass industries we are importing sufficient

foreign goods to employ the whole of the unemployed in those industries. I beg of the Government to consider that the steel trade is going through very serious circumstances. Comparing last year with 1923 we find that imports have been multiplied three and a-half times and in every branch of the industry their process has gone on. I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) is it to be said that this Government, with its great majority, and with its pledge to safeguard any efficient British industry, allowed the steel industry to perish, because they had not the courage to act? The hon. and gallant Member tells me of what Disraeli said as leader of the Conservative party, but I would remind him of what Disraeli said in his last great speech on this subject in this House:
it may he vain now in the midnight of Free Traders' intoxication to tell them that there will he an awakening of 'bitterness. it may be idle in the springtide of their economic frenzy to warn them of an ebb of trouble; but the dark inevitable hour will arrive and then, when their spirit is softened by misfortune, they will revert to those principles which made England great and which alone can keep her great.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 214: Noes, 130

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[11.0pm.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Eden, Captain Anthony


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Albery. Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent"l)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prismih.S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cockerllt, Brig.-General sir George
Galbralth, J. F. W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ganzonl, Sir John


Ballairs, Commander Carlyon
Cooper. A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Berry, Sir George
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Goff, Sir Park


Bethel, A.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gower, Sir Robert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwlck)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dalkelth, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dawson. Sir Philip
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.
Harland, A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Drewe, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanderson. Sir Frank


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith-Carington, Nevilie W.


Henderson, Lieut,-Col. Sir Vivian
Merriman, F. B.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Heneage. Lieut,-Col. Arthur P.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hogg, Rt. Hon- Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Holt, Captain H. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Murchison, sir Kenneth
Sykes. Major-Gen, sir Frederick H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Tasker, R. Infgo.


Hudson,Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nield, Rt, Hon. Sir Herbert
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Oakley, T.
Tinne, J. A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pennefather, Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Penny, Frederick George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perring, Sir William George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waddington, R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Phlilpson, Mabel
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Jones, Sir G. W. H.(Stoke New'gton)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Ward, Lt..Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull>


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Preston, William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raine, Sir Walter
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Lamb, J. Q.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Long, Major Eric
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, Lewie
Rice, Sir Frederick
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wragg, Herbert


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rye. F. G.



Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Streatfeild and Brigadier


Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sandeman, N. Stewart
General Sir Henry Croft.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sanden, Sir Robert A.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Blister)
Groves, T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baker, Walter
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Barr. J.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major G.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Handle, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Briant, Frank
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
Hayes. John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burniey)
Riley, Ben


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W. R..Elland)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Runclman, Hilda (Cornwall, St.Ives)


Compton, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Connolly, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James


Crawturd, H. E.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davles, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Duncan, C.
Kenwortny, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


England, Colonel A.
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. w.


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Forrest, W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Strauss, E. A.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gibbint, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Wallhead. Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen




Watts, Dr. T.
Wiggins, William Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts, Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Barnes.


Welsh, J. C.
Windsor, Walter



Whiteley, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Main Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY ACT, 1927.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the bye-laws (b), (c), (j) and (k), with respect to the New Forest, be annulled.
In moving this prayer I wish to apologise for the absence of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), whose name is attached to it on the Order Paper. Whilst there are four items mentioned in the prayer, I am proposing to call attention to only two of them (b) and (k). For the information of hon. Members I may say that there are some 11 by-laws lying on the Table of the House making Regulations for the public use of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. I am not opposed to any reasonable Regulations for the preservation of public property and the convenience of the public, but amongst these by-laws there are two which are slightly ambiguous, and under which it seems doubtful whether the rights of the public are being preserved. The preamble of these by-laws with regard to certain acts which are prohibited in the New Forest says:
Except in the exercise of the rights of the commoners, or in so far as they may be authorised in writing by the Forestry Commissioners, or the Assistant Forestry Commissioner for England, or the Deputy Surveyor in charge of the forest, and any person who does any of the following unauthorised acts shall on summary conviction as in manner provided by the Forestry Act, 1927, be liable to a fine not exceeding £5, and in case of a continuance of the offence to a further fine not exceeding 10s. for each day during which the offence continued.
Then there is a by-law (c) which shows what is prohibited:
Encamping upon any such waste or enclosure or erecting, placing or leaving thereon a tent, booth, swing, pole, clothes line or other erection whatsoever.
We should like to know from the hon. Member in charge of the Forestry Department whether that refers to an encamp-

ment of gypsies only, who may stay for a considerable time, or whether picnic parties would be prohibited from having a holiday for half a day and partly camping and making use of the amenities of the forest. I suggest that the by-law should either be annulled or so amended as to make that quite clear.

By-law (d) deals with the use of the forest by motor cars, chars-a-bancs and other vehicles. The by-law speaks of
The placing or leaving thereon of any motor car, char-a-bane, waggon, cart, carriage or van or other wheeled vehicles between sunset or sunrise or for business purposes or so as to cause any damage.
There is no explanation as to how this by-law will apply in those hours between sunset and sunrise. This point does not apply to the preceding Clause dealing with encamping, and I want that point made quite clear. Then there is by-law (j), which is even more ambiguous than the other by-laws I have quoted. It reads:
Interfering with, obstructing, or annoying any person or persons engaged in riding or who, with the consent of the Commissioners, are engaged in shooting or fishing, or any person lawfully and peacefully using the forest.
Does that by-law mean that the public who make a general use of the forest are to be prohibited or excluded from certain parts of the forest where persons are allowed to ride or where permission has been given to shoot or fish and so on? In this particular by-law there is a very great restriction with regard to the privileges now exercised by the public and a reservation allowing special privileges to certain people. I think something should be stated as to whether that is the case or whether, on the other hand, there will be free access to all parts of the forest to the public, even though shooting or fishing or riding may be taking place. I want to know why it is that the enforcement of these bylaws and legal process under which they are to be enforced are being reserved to the Verderers of the Forest. It has been pointed out that that would be a Court of Justice, and they will be entitled to exclude from the forest any person they have reasonable grounds for thinking are
likely to commit offences against the by-laws. I hope I have given some grounds for asking for an elucidation of these points from the representative of the Forestry Commissioners. On this side, we are as anxious as anyone that public rights should be maintained.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I think the House will appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has placed his views before the House regarding these bylaws. I think we shall all agree that any public property ought to be looked after in the interests of the public who, after all, are the owners of that property; and there is nothing really, when one analyses these by-laws, which is not quite well known in almost every part of Great Britain. These by-laws which have been set up for the New Forest are in accordance with the Forestry Act, 1927, and are exactly similar to those for Epping Forest and other forests in this country. The by-laws have been agreed to by the Verderers, on which body are members of the local bodies in the New Forest and members of the Advisory Committee which has been set up; and no question or objection, so far as we have heard, has been raised about them.
I am really rather amazed at their modesty when I find that the London County Council by-laws are far more stringent than arc ours in the New Forest, and their fines are very much larger. We do not intend or propose in these by-laws to prevent the public enjoyment of the New Forest, but. what we do propose is that the public shall be safeguarded in the enjoyment which they will get of that lovely forest. We want to increase its safety from fire and other dangers, so that the enjoyment of the general public shall not be jeopardised. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) referred to (c). I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but to my mind "encamping" means erecting a tent or camp and sleeping there. I do not think that one would encamp for a picnic; at any rate, that is not my idea of the word. I am open to legal correction, but to me encamping obviously means forming a camp, and forming a camp is usually
erecting either a tent or a shed in which you sleep for a day, or a night, or a week, as the case may be.
The question has been asked why we object to clothes-lines. Clothes-lines are not very ornamental. We have numerous people who live in and around the New Forest, and it is quite likely that some people might put up clothes-lines outside their gardens, so as not to take the sun off the cabbages which they arc growing. We do not want people to dry their clothes on our property, or on the nation's property. That is the reason why the word "clothes-line" is put in. I feel quite sure that it can cause no possible objection. Moreover, this encamping can be subject to approval by the Commissioners. If anyone wants to encamp, he goes and asks the Commissioners or the Assistant Commissioner, or the Deputy Surveyor, if he may do so. If he says "Yes," it can be done. The probability is that if no harm is done he will say "Yes."

Mr. RILEY: Is it not necessary to apply in writing?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: It is much better to put things in writing, because people are so apt to forget the difference between what they say one day and what they remember the next.

Mr. LANSBURY: Under the Regulations for Epping Forest, do people have to write for permission to sleep out?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: I am informed that these are exactly similar to the by-laws of Epping Forest under the Epping Forest Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: To my knowledge, they are not. In any case, they are violated every summer day.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: With regard to (j), which deals with interfering, obstructing and annoying, I would like to point- out that one of our objects is to encourage sport in that area. A person who goes in for sport in the New Forest is not a millionaire, but a man with a small income, and he has to work very hard even to get one or two shots in the day. He has to take out a licence which costs him £20, and he will be very lucky if he gets value in game to the amount of 20s. Another thing is that he saves us the
expense of keeping down rabbits, which are not very helpful in connection with forests. There is no proposal that a gentleman who is riding should ride over anyone; there is no suggestion that any. one who is shooting would interfere with anyone who wants to walk through the forest. It is a large area. You might walk through the forest for a week and never see a man shooting. I do not think there is any sound objection to these by-laws. They are not proposed to be used to keep the public out but they are proposed for the safeguarding not
only of the public but of the forest itself.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir C. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes after
Eleven o'Clock.